SNEHLATA GUPTA Vs. CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the bills issued by the respondents on 25.1.2006 and also to prepare proper bills on the basis of fresh load on domestic tariff.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the Board vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that according to the general terms and conditions with respect to the supply of electricity as modified vide notification dated 29.10.2002 penalties or compensation for malpractices includes theft and pilferage and paragraph 8(A) thereof two provisions have been included stating that malpractice including theft and pilferage will include supply under lower tariff for the purpose under which higher tariff is in force and consumption on domestic supply exceeds sanctioned/contracted load. He also states that so far second point is concerned, the petitioner has herself admitted but with respect to the first it had been found in two enquiries that the electricity supply under domestic tariff, which is the lower tariff, was being used for commercial tariff which is a higher tariff, which is the lower tariff, was being used for commercial tariff which is a higher tariff. He further states that the petitioner in her writ petition has herself accepted the fact that there are four tenants in the third floor of the house and one of the tenants had also stated before the Inspecting Authorities that the said rooms are under the tenancy of the tenants. Hence, learned counsel for the Board submits that instead of simple tenancy the petitioner is running a hostel in the third floor of the premises and so according to the said terms and conditions it is malpractice, theft or pilferage and hence the action of the respondent -authorities is quite legal and justified.