BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD @ BIHAR STATE POWER (HOLDING) COMPANY LTD Vs. M/S R.S. FABRICATORS, THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE PARTNER, RAM BACHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board (for brevity, the Board) is in this intra-Court appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.10.2012 passed in CWJC No. 7284 of 2008 (M/s R.S. Fabricators Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others) whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash Annexure 2 to the writ petition being the demand notice dated 09.04.2008 as being not in accordance with law. The Board, being aggrieved, has preferred this intra-Court appeal.

(2.) The writ petitioner-respondent has appeared and the pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) The writ petitioner-respondent was an LTIS-I consumer of electricity being supplied by the Board. It had a sanctioned connected load of 8 HP. On 07.04.2008, an inspection was conducted in the business premises in presence of one of the partners by a team of Special Task Force. As per the alleged inspection report, there was unauthorized excess load of 17 HP found. The report was given to the partner of the writ petitioner-respondent 's firm. The writ petitioner-respondent immediately protested in writing to the authorities. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, by letter No. 645 dated 09.04.2008 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), a demand was raised including demand for additional security. Thereafter, by Annexure 4 to the writ petition, being Letter No. 495 dated 15.04.2008, the protest of the writ petitioner-respondent was rejected. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the demand, as contained in the Letter dated 09.04.2008 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). A counter affidavit was filed by the Board in which it was not disputed that apart from the letter of demand, no assessment order was passed or served on the writ petitioner but in support of the demand, a calculation sheet was annexed as Annexure E. It is not in dispute that this was never served on the writ petitioner-respondent. The learned Single Judge has quashed the demand.