AUTOMOBILE ANCILLARY INDUSTRIES Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed (i) for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to restore the electric connection of the petitioner -factory which was disconnected on 26.8.1999 on the basis of an inspection made in which 12 HP has been illegally added to the load of 77.5 HP; (ii) for restoration of the electric connection of the petitioner -factory as the disconnection was made in violation of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act (for short, as the Act); (iii) for a declaration that the lighting load in any industry cannot be added with the connected load of the consumer for the purpose of calculation of the total connected load; and (iv) for a direction upon the respondents not to raise any bill on the basis of the said inspection report by holding that the petitioner has exceeded the contract demand and for issuance of any other relief.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing of the writ application, it has been submitted that the connection has already been restored; consequently, the prayer relating to restoration of the connection has now become infructuous. But the inspection dated 26.8.1999, on the basis of which the disconnection was made, will be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the rest of raised issues in this writ application. Thus, the following two questions are relevant ;

(3.) THE respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit, denying that the supply was disconnected in pursuance of the inspection note dated 26.8.1999. It was averred by the respondents that the petitioner had already entered into an agreement with the Board for consumption of 79 HP load, which was to be treated as sanctioned load and therefore, the petitioner would not consume beyond the contracted load because the petitioner is supposed to avail load within the sanctioned load and in its exercise, it can segregate the total load in accordance with its utility, but within the contracted load. The petitioner is supposed to avail within that 79 HP to "meet its requirements" and if the petitioner is allowed to avail beyond the load of 79 HP, the agreement executed between the parties will be meaningless and it will be a breach of the term of contract. With regard to the report submitted on 19.7.1993 (Annexure 2), it has been averred by the respondents that it was a meter replacement report and on that date, the load was found to be 75 HP and the remaining load which was being consumed for lighting was spared, otherwise the load would have been more than 79 HP, which will be clear from the inspection report dated 26.8.1999 (Annexure 9). It was denied that the factory premises was inspected from time to time and no load more than the sanctioned load was detected. It was further averred that admittedly the petitioner was availing the power of lighting etc. to the extent of 9 KW, but on the other hand, the petitioner was not accepting the total load of 89.54 HP, which is not justified on the part of the petitioner. With regard to the connected load, it has been said that the interpretation of the connected load by the petitioner is wrong and it has been added that if the load of the motor is calculated for the purpose of calculating the connected load, then the lighting load of 9 KW should also be considered. With regard to the notice under Section 24(1) of the Act, it has been submitted that show cause to the petitioner is not required to be given because the opportunity had already been given to the petitioner by the Board to regularise the supply as per HT tariff as the petitioner was availing the power of 89.54 HP.