JVVNAL Vs. MANGAL RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by learned single Judge of this Court on 11-9-2003 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2375/2003 by which the additional demand notice for Rs. 11000/- towards the electricity charges including the cost of the poles and its installation, has been quashed by the learned single Judge assigning reasons therein which discloses, that the additional demand which has been raised against the respondent agriculturist on the basis of a circular was already within the knowledge of the Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (Hereinafter to be referred in short as 'the JWNL') and only thereafter a demand of Rs. 72,710/- was raised by the petitioner against the electricity charges consumed by the respondent agriculturist.

(2.) The controversy in a nutshell which cropped up is that the respondent-consumer had initially failed to deposit the amount tow'ards the electricity charges in the year 1999 but the Government of Rajasthan considering the hardships of the agriculturists/ farmers, extended the date for payment of the amount towards the bills which had been issued to the consumers including the agriculturist-respondent herein. The last date for payment of the amount was fixed as December 30, 1999 and the liability of Rs. 72,710/- was duly discharged by the respondent-consumer as this amount was deposited within the stipulated period. However, the respondent on 31-3-2001 i.e. after two years raised an additional demand of Rs. 11,.000/- for the same period as contained in Annex. 3, which was challenged by the respondent herein by filing 'a writ petition which was heard by the learned single Judge of this Court and a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant JWNL who was respondent therein calling for an explanation in regard to the demand notice. The respondent JWNL came up with a justification that the additional demand of Rs. 11,000/- which was issued against the respondent-consumer was on the basis of a circular which was issued in the year 1999 for additional payment towards cost of the pole and its installation which has not yet been realised from the respondent and this cost accrued towards enhanced cost of installation of poles. Therefore, the demand notice for payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1 l.000/- had been issued to the respondent-consumer :

(3.) The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties and on a scrutiny of the facts which were involved in this writ petition concluded that the additional demand of Rs. 11,000/- was unjustified as the circular regarding the cost of the pole was already in existence in the year 1999 when the final payment of Rs. 72,710/- was raised against the respondent which includes installation and cost of the pole and that was the final amount to be paid by the respondent by 30-12-1999 which had been duly paid. Therefore the demand notice as contained in Annex. 3 was quashed by the learned single Judge and the electricity connection had been ordered to be released in favour of respondent agriculturist.