BALESHWAR PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECBOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness of the bills for the period 5.8.2000, 1.9.2000, 3.10.2000, 3.11.2000,4.5.2000,6.6.2001 and 2.7.2001 as according to the petitioner the said bills were raised illegally on the principles of average basis violating provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner also challenges the bill for A.M.G. for the period 2000 -2001 for 38211 units and also prays further that the respondents be directed not to charge the A.M.G. for the period of disconnection i.e. 16.11.2000 to 9.4,2001. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be asked not to charge the delayed payment surcharge.

(2.) THE facts not in dispute before me are that in the year 1963, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board" for the sake of brevity) with a contract demand of 135 K.V.A. The said unit was closed in the year 1990 -91. The said Cold storage was reconnected to energy at a reduced load of 78 H.P. in the low tension category. Though according to the petitioner there were certain disputes about the load factors etc., but the Board maintains that though the petitioner was registered as a low tension unit, but the facilities available to H.T. consumer remained intact because the Cold storage was consuming more than the contract load without informing the Board and the fact later on came to the notice of the Board in view of the inspection reports dated 6.6.97 and 29.11.3997. According to the Board an electronic trivector meter was installed by the Board, the reading showed consumption of the H.T. loads and, therefore, H.T. load bills were sent and a notice was also issued to the petitioner for execution of the agreement for H.T. load. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent Board filed Title Suit no. 115/97 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif for declaration and also prayed for temporary injunction. The petition for grant of temporary injunction was rejected and thereafter the petitioner withdrew his suit. The supply of energy was disconnected. It is not in dispute before me that on 1.2.2000 the petitioner entered into a H.T. agreement. According to the petitioner the Assistant Electrical Engineer, during the course of inspection on 2.8.2000 found that the meter was burnt and was not recording the energy consumption. The Assistant Electrical Engineer informed the higher authority for due verification. On 3.8.2000 the petitioner informed the Superintending Engineer that the meter was burnt, the information was already given to the Board and a new meter be installed. On 8.8.2000, the petitioner again wrote to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division, Biharsharif, Nalanda for replacement of the meter. The petitioner requested that in place of the burnt meter a new meter be installed so that the correct billing is done. The letters written by the petitioner are annexed to the petition as Annexure -4 and Annexure -5.

(3.) ON 31.8.2000 vide Annexure -8 the petitioner again sent a request letter to the Board for changing the burnt meter so that the correct consumption is recorded and the petitioner is not put to a loss. On 5.9.2000 under Annexure -9, the petitioner informed the Superintending Engineer that a meter was available in M.R.T. Patna therefore a recommendation letter be sent in the name of Ganeral Manager to obtain the meter. On 6.9.2000 (Vide Annexure -B to the counter affidavit) the Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the General Manager for providing a meter. It appears that the meter was not available with the General Manager, therefore, vide Letter no. 2941 dated 13.9.2000 (Annexure -10 to the petition), the Superintending Engineer informed the petitioner that the meter was not available and the petitioner could purchase a meter in accordance with the specification provided by the Board. On 30.10.2000 vide Annexure -11 the petitioner again wrote to the Board that the meter be immediately replaced and if a particular meter of a particular company is not available then petitioner 'sline be disconnected and whenever the meter is installed/replaced the connection be restored. Vide Annexure -C dated 7.11.2000 the respondent Board required the petitioner to make deposits of the arrears. Vide letter dated 17/18.11.2000 (Annexure -12 to the petition, Annexure -D to the counter affidavit) the petitioner was informed that because of the non payment of the dues supply has already been disconnected.