BEENA HOTEL Vs. JHARKAHND BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 449 of 2022 for restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply to the petitioner's premises and also to restrain them from acting in furtherance of letter no. 3173 dtd. 18/11/2021 (Annexure-IA-2 to the present interlocutory application) issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer (C&R), Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that partners of the petitioner - M/s Beena Hotel took an electrical connection under the NDS-II category of Tariff (Commercial Services Tariff) for a sanctioned load of 75 KW for running the hotel. An inspection was made in the premises of the petitioner on 27/11/2018 and a "Load Inspection Report" was prepared by the respondents according to which the connected load was found to be 102 KW instead of 75 KW and as per the said report, the connected load was beyond the maximum limit of Non-Domestic Service Tariff. One of the partners of the petitioner namely, Darshana Ajmani received a letter dtd. 2/1/2019 (signed on 31/12/2018) issued by the respondent no. 3 - the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Kokar, Ranchi, whereby she was informed that during inspection of her premises i.e., Beena Hotel, Station Road, Chutia, the load was found to as 102 KW instead of 75 KW and she was directed to convert the connection from Low-Tension Category to High-Tension category. By way of abundant caution, the partner of the petitioner namely, Darshana Ajmani applied for a High-Tension connection and filled the requisite form along with an application fee of Rs.500.00. Thereafter, she was served with a letter on 31/5/2019 by the respondent no. 4 - the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi, whereby a load of 135 KVA in HTS Tariff on 11 KV line was sanctioned, subject to the condition of her depositing Rs.14,55,300.00 as security amount. She was also asked to pay a sum of Rs.7,64,725.00 as a shortfall amount in reference to the inspection held on 27/11/2018. She was further directed to arrange a distribution transformer as per the sanctioned load. In the said letter at para-2, a sum of Rs.7,64,725.00 - was asked to be paid, but no separate bill/calculation sheet/show-cause notice/provisional assessment order/final assessment order was ever issued in that respect. Thereafter, the respondents issued a Corrigendum dtd. 28/12/2019 amending para-2 of the earlier letter dtd. 31/5/2019 and she was asked to pay a sum of Rs.6,92,756.00 instead of the earlier amount of Rs.7,64,725.00 as a shortfall amount in reference of inspection dtd. 27/11/2018, however, again no detail was given as to how the amount of Rs.6,92,756.00 - was arrived at and which provision of law was followed. Nevertheless, in terms with the direction to deposit the security amount of Rs.14,55,300.00, partner- Darshana Ajmani after deducting the initial security amount of Rs.2,08,500.00, got a bank guarantee of Rs.12,46,800.00 and furnished it before the respondents as security amount. She also took steps to purchase a Transformer. In the meantime, due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the guidelines of the government prohibited the business of running the hotel. When the Government of India and later on the State of Jharkhand allowed the hotels to re-open with effect from 1/9/2020, the petitioner's partner-Darshana Ajmani addressed a letter dtd. 27/10/2020 to the respondent no. 4 to provide calculation sheet on the basis of which the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,92,756.00 as a shortfall amount. Thereafter on 29/10/2020, it was served with a calculation sheet for the months from October, 2017 to August, 2019 raising bills of Rs.6,92,756.00 in respect of shortfall charges due to difference found in connected load and sanctioned load. Since no current electricity bills were being raised by the respondents from September, 2019, Darshana Ajmani made representation dtd. 2/11/2020 requesting the respondent no. 4 to recall the bills for the period from October 2017 to August 2019 raised by way of difference between Commercial Services Tariff and High Tension Tariff. However, no reply to the representation made by her was received. The petitioner then filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3811 of 2020 contenting that the demand contained in the calculation sheet did not disclose anywhere that the same was raised pursuant to an assessment under Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2003"). Moreover, no such assessment order was served to the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 21/1/2021 giving liberty to the petitioner to move before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (VUSNF), Ranchi by filing a complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the VUSNF by filing a complaint which was registered as Case No. 1 of 2021. The VUSNF vide order dtd. 1/4/2021, however, disposed of the said complaint observing that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner since it was allegedly a case under Sec. 126 of the Act, 2003 against which an appeal lies under Sec. 127 of the Act, 2003. Hence, the present writ petition.