JYOTI PRASAD JAIN Vs. DESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint of the appellant seeking withdrawal of penalty for misuse of agricultural connection @ Rs.500 per day from 14.5.1992 to 9.6.1992 and restoration of the power supply which was disconnected for non-payment of the misuse charges was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.1994. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Admittedly, the appellant was having agricultural electricity connection K. No.532230 since 1987. On 15.12.1990 the premises was inspected by the official of the respondent and appellant was found to be misusing the agricultural connection for commercial purpose. Accordingly a show-cause notice for levying of higher tariff plus 25% surcharge was issued on 17.1.1991 and on the pointing out of the auditor of the respondent that there was omission to levy the proposed surcharge and misuse charge, the arrears from 15.12.1990 to November, 1991 were included in the bill for the month of January 1992. Since the bill was not paid the electricity connection was disconnected. However, with the intervention of the Financial Advisor of the respondent supply was restored on 9.6.1992 on payment of Rs.487 out of bill for Rs.30,245.69. Appellant disputed the liability to pay misuse charges firstly on the ground that there was no misuse at all and secondly that the whole supply cannot be billed at higher tariff with surcharge in case agricultural connection is used for other purpose. They also made request for installing a separate meter to measure the consumption used for the lighting.

(3.) Let us assumed that the agricultural connection was found to be misused by the appellant on the date of inspection i. e. , 15.12.1990 it is not understandable as to on what basis and on what premise the show-cause notice for levy of higher tariff plus 25% surcharge for the preceding three years was issued. No party can be allowed to take advantage of its own act of omission and commission the electricity was being used since 1986-97 and for the first time the premises was inspected in December, 1990. It is again not understandable as to how and on what basis the auditor of the respondent found omission on the part of the respondent to levy the proposed surcharge and misuse charges from 15.12.1990. Merely because the appellant did not pay the bill raised on the normal consumption did not authorise the respondent to raise the bill by treating the consumption as misused and charges levied from 15.12.1990. At the most the presumption of misusing the electricity connection for six months period preceding to the date of inspection could have been raised but in no way the respondent was authorised to levy the higher tariff plus 25% surcharge for the last three years.