BIHAR ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. USHA MARTIN INDUSTRIESLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.7.1996, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1388 of 1996 (R) by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which he allowed the writ application filed by the writ petitioner respondent and quashed the bill dated 4.4.1996, contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, whereby the respondent was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 11, 42, 34, 683, 71 IPS, towards the assessed loss in energy charges from 17.6.1974 to 31.12.1990 and fuel surcharge on energy loss assessed.

(2.) THE respondent is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing alloy steels billets at its factory situated at Gamharia (Usha Alloys and Steel Division) and for running its factory, it has taken electric connection on contract demand, which was enhanced from time to time and at present it is 19.5 MVA under the HT line and the supply line is of 33 KV, which was taken on 17.4.1974.

(3.) THE stand of the appellants, as appears from the counter affidavit, was that the respondent established Arc Furnace in the year 1974 as a first of its kind in the State of Bihar and as such it was a new consumer of this type for the appellant. In course of time, it was found that the meter reading at Grid i.e. installed at take off Structure and Consumers premises was varying widely and beyond technically permissible limit.After enquiry, it was found that the said variations were occurred as the respondent was extracting electricity by way of fraudulent means and, accordingly, an F.I.R. was lodged by the Vigilance Department against the respondent in the year 1989. the contract demand of the respondent is 19.5. MVA. The current of 33 KV will be about 3.50 Amps for the normal type of load. The C.T. having C.T. ratio of 400/5 Amps was quite in adequate. In the case of Electric Arc Furnace, the current drawing pattern is of very peculiar nature. At the time of charging the Furnace, the current goes as high as 180% of the normal rated Current.Considering this the maximum current drawn by this load will be of the order of 600/615 Amps. Considering this aspect of the behaviour of Electric Arc Furnace, the capacity of the C.T. should be about double of the requirement for the normal type of load. The appellants found that there was a fraudulent extraction of the energy for the period 17.6.1976 to December, 1990. Thereafter, the Electronic meter was installed in consumer's premises on 7.1.1991. It was decided that the method to assess actual units consumed for the aforementioned period should be calculated by taking the average consumption during 1991 92 to 1994 95 as correct consumption by taking into consideration the particulars of Energy Conservation Report of the respondent's Director M.T. of Steel Billets. The estimation of units loss of electrical energy was made after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, on the basis of which a supplementary bill was raised. The Board has power to raise supplementary bill for the wrong and short charging under Clause 6 (b) of the tariff notification No. COM/ Tar 74 334 dated 13.4.1974. Thus, the supplementary bill dated 4.4.1996 has been raised in accordance with the provisions contained in the tariff after assessing the wrongful loss to the appellants. The assessed loss has been determined by the Board after thorough investigation and scientific and technical examination and after taking into consideration the documents maintained by the respondent. Further stand of the Board is that as the respondent has utilised the energy, it has to pay of the loss of energy determined, which has been extracted and consumed by it in fraudulent manner.