- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Sri Avinash Hajola has filed this writ petition challeng ing the demand notice of Rs. 43,135. 11 dated 7- 10-1995 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) issued by the State Electricity Board for the power connection No. 88815 in his residential flat No. MIG 198 Pritam Nagar, Allahabad. This is the second occasion when the petitioner had to rush to this Court. His earlier writ petition No. 16083 of 1993 was filed with the prayer that the bill dated 18-2-1993 foe a sum of Rs. 11,878-20 for the aforesaid power connection be quashed. The petitioner had prayed some adjustment and wanted his representation to be decided. An interim order was passed on 7-5-1993 and it was directed that the Executive Engineer concerned should decide the representation of the petitioner with a speaking order within six weeks from the date a certified copy of that order was produced. The petitioner who also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000 and the recovery proceedings were stayed.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed because according to the averments made therein the opposite party went a head with the recovery by issuing notice without deciding the earlier representation, therefore, their subsequent action was contrary to the directions passed by this Court on 7-5-1993 referred to above. Shri Shashi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the Board have been heard at length for and against this writ petition. As jointly requested both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this order. Though the matter was serious enough in the sense that in spite of the said order of the Division Bench a fresh bill was served upon the petitioner yet accepting the arguments advanced on their behalf and the genuine regret expressed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal on behalf of opposite party and also the unqualified apology tendered in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit no further action in this regard is necessary. In the mean time it t appears that by a reasoned order dated 6- 11-1995 the representation of the petitioner concerning the. bill dated 15-2-1995 has been finally disposed of. It may be pointed out that while disposing of the said representation the bill has been amended and now a total sum Rs. 15,209-38 is shown out standing against the petitioner. However, it was rightly pointed out by Sri Shashi Kant that a sum of Rs. 6,113-73 has been charged as surhcarge for delayed payment. Sri Sudhir Agrawal wanted to justify the sucharge on the ground that the petitioner did not make payment of the bill though it was duly served upon him.
(3.) AFTER considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the aforesaid demand of surcharge is without any basis whatso ever. Since the rate applicable in the bill was under challenge the petitioner was thus findings out a bona fide dispute. The said bona fide dispute has been settled only on 6-11-1995, Consequently the demand of Rs. 15,209 and odd is thus held to be excessive, because on the above facts and the circumstances, the sum of Rs. 6,113 and odd cannot be charged from the petitioner. Result of this discussion is that now the petitioner has to pay a sum pf Rs. 9096-00 (rounded of to the nearest rupee ). The said bill sent to the petitioner, which is admittedly served upon him, it amended to the extent that instead of Rs. 15,209 and odd the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 9096-00 as full and final payment towards the said bill. The petitioner has been granted time through the bill itself till 25-11- 1995 to made the payment. In view of the reduction which the petitioner has been able to successfully obtain by this Court, no further time need be allowed. With the aforesaid directions both the writ petitions stand finally allowed. Parties will bear their costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges with a week and a copy shall be placed in the record of the writ petition No. 10083 of 1993. Petition allowed. .;