PRATIK MULTIFILMS Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the Electrical Executive Engineer ( Annexure-6) by which punitive bill has been directed to be raised against the petitioner on the basis of inspection done on 19.5.2003 by adopting conversion factor of the tariff on the basis of KVA recorded in the meter as the maximum demand, which according to the petitioner is i3216napplicable to Low Tension(L.T.I.) consumer like the petitioner and is only applicable to High Tension(H.T.C.) Consumer. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the letter dated 21.5.2004 along with the bill annexed thereto, where under a demand has been raised under clause 16.9 on th3216e basis of 114 H.P. pursuant to the order dated 28.4.2004. Petitioner has also sought for direction upon the respondents to implement the order of Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum dated 16.5.2004 wherein an earlier bill raised under clause 16.9 was set aside directing the Board to raise current monthly bills on the basis of sanctioned load of 73 H.P. and excluding delayed payment surcharge on the original bill. Consequentially, petitioner has also sought for direction upon the respondents to raise bills on the basis of sanctioned load of 73 HP and 3216not beyond that.

(3.) The short fact of the case are that an inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 19.5.2003 wherein the meter was found working properly, but the maximum demand of 107.1 KVA was recorded in the said meter, which as per the inspe3216ction report(Annexure-1) was more than the sanctioned load i.e. 73 H.P. In that view of the matter, action was recommended to be taken as per the Tariff rules pursuant to the notice dated 5.2.2004(Annexure-2) issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer asking him to show cause against the raising of punitive bill under clause 16.9(A)(iv) of the tariff by converting KVA into H.P. Petitioner filed its show cause vide Annexure-3 . Petitioner, interalia raised the contention that being L.T.I.S category consumer having connected load of 73 H.P. the respondent- Board could not have raised the demand on the basis of maximum demand indicator shown in the electronic meter as clause 16.9 does not apply to the petitioner, which is applicable to H.T. Consumer. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Consumer Redressal Forum in the case of Shubhash Kumar as also in the case of Weldon Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. It is further contended by the petitioner in his show cause that there was no allegation in the inspection report that petitioner was found to have a connected load beyond 73 H.P.