SATAYANDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN BIHAR ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the prayers of the different appellants were disposed of in the court below by a common order passed in the Title Suit No. 80 of 1986 making the same applicable to other suits refusing to rant injunction in their favour, these five appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The portrayal of the relevant facts are short and simple. The plaintiffs- appellants assert that they do their business of stone crusing with the help of supply of electricity on the basis of agreements but electric meters supplied were inherently defective : which also burnt bills were illegally prepared on the basis of 30% load factor even if supply of electricity was disrupted. The plaintiffs personally met the Executive Engineer and the Sub-divisional Electrical engineer (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and informed them about the burning of the meters who inspected the meters and assured them to change them and told the plaintiffs that till the meters are changed, the charge will be according to the average consumptions of the previous three monts. Ltters were written to the defendant No. 3, requesting that the average reading of previous three months should be made of such period during which the meters had run correctly. Due to poor and disrupted electric supply, the plaintiffs suffered heavy loss causing set back to their business. Bills were submitted to them all of a sudden on the basis of 30% load factor charge on the basis of an order of E.S.E./B.G.P. D,D. No. 107 dated 15-4-1986 which are illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff also filed separate injunction petitions in their suits requesting to grant ad interim injunctions restraining the respondents from disconnecting their electric connections on account of non-payment of the bills in question. The court below issued notices to the respondents who showed cause and prayed for rejecting the prayers for grant of injunctions alleging, inter alia, therein, that the suits are barred ; that the bills were issued in accordance with the instructions according to which 30% load factor was to be charged : that the earlier bills were got prepared collusively : that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs ; thas the balance of convenience lies in their favour and that it is a settled law that where the relief can be measured in terms of money there should not be any order of injunction.

(3.) The court below by the impugned orders has been pleased to reject the prayers to grant injunction holding that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case as the authority of the Board has not been challenged ; that in terms of Section 15-B of the Notification No. Com/TAR-1010/82/358 (which is dated 12-6-1982) the Board has full authority to raise wrong charging and further that in terms of Clause-D of Section 15 of the aforesaid notification the consumers may protest but payment has to be made under protest in case of any dispute ; that the plaintiffs are not going to suffer any irreparable loss as in the event of their success they can be compensated in terms of money and that the balance of convenience is also not in their favour.