ASHOK INDUSTRIES Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the energy bills Ex. 3 to Ex. 8. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner owns a seasonal factory in the nature of Zincing factory covered by the definition of expression 'seasonal factories' as defined in Clause VII of the Tariff for Supply of Electricity in 1981. The petitioner was released connection on January 2, 1982 and the petitioner intimated in writing, as per Clause VII, a month in advance the period of off season during which the petitioner's factory will remain closed. That intimation is Ex. 2, according to which the off season shall commence from April 1,1982 to October 31,1982. The petitioner was served with the bill Ex. 3 for consumption upto March 28, 1982. According to this bill, the petitioner consumed 24,160 units. This bill does not include the reading of three days, viz. , 29th, 30th and 31st of March, 1982. Thereafter the petitioner was served with bills Ex. 4 to Ex 8. Ex. 4 is dated August 13,1982, in. respect of the consumption recorded in the months of May, June and July, 1982. For the month of May, the consumption shown is 1100 units. The petitioner disputes the bills on the basis that the petitioner factory has not been treated as seasonal factory and bills have been sent to the petitioner as if it is a non-seasonal factory and bills of minimum charges have been sent. For the month of April, 1982, the actual consumption is only of 720 units. Three days consumption of the last three days of March, 1982 ought to have been excluded. The petitioner produced the reading taken on March 31,1982. If three days reading is excluded in the consumption for the month of April, 1982, then the actual consumption for the month of April, 1982 would be 720 units, less than 10% of the monthly consumption of the petitioner factory, which comes to about 800 units. In view of the fact that three months consumption was 24,160 units, one month's average consumption would come to 8000 units and 10% thereof would be only 800 units. As regards the consumption for the month of May, 1982 is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record the fact that the matter was not recording correct consumption. It was running fast and that has been tested and according to the test report Ex. 16, the actual consump-tion comes to only 540 units instead of 1100 units. Thus, the bill Ex. 4 wrongly recorded the consumption of the petitioner factory as 1100 units for the month of May, 1982. For the remaining months, there is no dispute regarding actual consumption.

(2.) WHEN the petitioner factory had intimated the period of off season and according to that, for the period from April 1,1982 to October 31, 1982 the petitioner factory can only be charged on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the off season. As the petitioner factory fulfils the conditions that its consumption had not exceeded 10% of the monthly average consumption, the petitioner factory, therefore, cannot be billed on the basis of minimum charges. It can be only billed in accordance with the condition applicable to it that it is a seasonal factory and for the off season, the basis would be not minimum charges but actual consumption. Thus, the petitioner factory has not been served with correct bills according to tariff which is applicable to it. Therefore, bills Ex. 4 to Ex 8 deserve to be quashed and the petitioner factory is only liable to make payment of the revised bills according to the tariff applicable to it on the basis that from April 1, 1982 to October 31, 1982 the petitioner factory shall be treated as remained off season.