CELESTINE MATHIS Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the supplementary bill dated 4.3.1998 (Annexure-3A), for the period August 1991 to January 1998, and the supplementary bill dated 4.3.1998 (Annexure-3B), for the period August 1991 to January 1998, for the two meters installed in the premises of Petitioner No. 1, to record the supply of power. This writ petition is further directed against the order dated 1.4.1998 (Annexure-4), passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby representation of the Petitioners to treat it as a convent and under the head 'domestic service' (hereinafter referred to as 'D.S.'), has been rejected, and has instead been held to be covered by the head 'non-domestic' (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.S.'), within the meaning of the tariff notifications published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra.), September 20, 1991, and its successor notification published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra.), June 23, 1993.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Petitioner No. 2 is a society registered under Societies Registration Act of 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and has been allotted Registration No. 39 of 1967-1968. A photocopy of its Memorandum of Association is on record marked Annexure-5. It is stated therein that Petitioner No. 2 has been set up with charitable, spiritual, religious and social purposes. Its aims and objects are stated in detail in Annexure-5. Petitioner No. 2 has set up a number of institutions in the township of Patna to provide relief and services to the humanity. One such institution is Tripolia Social Service Hospital, Gulzarbagh. Petitioner No. 1 is residential premises of the nuns and/or sisters who are engaged in religious and spiritual activities, who also work in the hospitals. Petitioner No. 2 had applied with Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for supply of electricity power to its establishment in the township of Patna. It was registered as consumer under the tariff notification published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra.), dated 12.8.1983. It was provided with two meters, one for residential portion bearing AC No. 218 under DS-3, and the other one for irrigation and cultivation purposes bearing AC No. 57269 under Agricultural Service. The Petitioners received power supply and continued to pay the bills without default till such time the Board published the successor tariff notification dated 20.9.1991, which, in its turn, was replaced by its successor tariff notification dated 23.6.1993. Petitioner No. 2 was charged under D.S.-III and agriculture unit category which carry lower rates of power supply. The Board in the hind-sight felt that, with the promulgation of tariff notifications of 1991 and 1993, Petitioner No. 2 is required to make payment of the bills under C.S. and N.D.S. The Board, therefore, issued the impugned supplementary bills marked Annexures-3A and 3B, to realize the arrears for the periods in question. Petitioner No. 1 submitted its representation requesting therein that Annexure 3A and 3B, the supplementary bills, may be countermanded because Petitioner No. 1 is a purely residential premises and therefore, should be charged in the D.S. category. The same has been rejected by the impugned order (Annexure-4). Hence this writ petition.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Board has completely over-looked the aims, objects, and the purpose for which the premises known as Petitioner No. 1 is being used. It is being used solely and exclusively for residential purpose of nuns and/or sisters who are not required to make any payment, and the convent is being run without any profit motive at all. In his submission, the Board will have to take into account the aims, objects, and the purpose of it every individual institution under Petitioner No. 2, which may be different from the other. The fact that one premises is being used as hospital and is covered by C.S., cannot lead to the conclusion that another premises being used solely for residential purposes will be covered by C.S. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Council for Protection of Public Rights and Welfare v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1994 1 PLJR 853.