Palok Basu, Mohan Lal Singhal, J. - (1.) SHRI Suresh Chandra has filed the aforesaid writ petitions claiming himself to be the Managing Director of M/s. Chandra Synthetics Limited. The prayer is that the original assessment order whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay electricity charges on the theft tariff has been held applicable to be quashed and further that the appellate order dated 21.2.94 as also the recovery notice may be quashed. However, the prayer is that a sum of Rs. 3,92,066.44 be not recovered from the petitioner and the power connection atleast to the strength of 25 Horse Power to be directed to be restored. Shri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on considerable length in support of the writ petition. Shri Sudhir Agarwal has also been heard for long, on behalf of the State Electricity Board. It may be mentioned here that both the learned counsel agreed that in so far as the subsequent writ petition No. 6362 of 1995 is concerned, it has become infructuous.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record thoroughly, two points appears undisputedly. First, that there was a surprise inspection on the petitioner premises by vigilance staff of the State Electricity Board, when it is alleged that the petitioner was drawing illegal power connection and second that the petitioner himself has filed an appeal against the assessment on the basis of theft tariff in which appeal has been dismissed. It is contended by Shri Ravi Kant that the appellate order should have been based on specific reason and in the absence of this judgment is liable to be quashed. It may be mentioned here that there are reasons in the impugned order of the appellate authority dated. 28.2.94 which has been passed by the appellate committee consisting of Shri K.K. Jindal, Shri A.K. John, and Shri J.M.L. Vaish, the last one being the Chief Engineer. It has been held that the petitioner was drawing power through transformer which was shifted at his premises and it has also been found that due to illegal installation of 188.10 H.P. on 63 K.V. transformer and connected load by showing L.T. Cable caused the damage of the transformer. On these findings, it was concluded in the last paragraph that cost of 188.10 HP has to be charged from the petitioner because he was having only 25 H.P. temporary load sanctioned by the Board.
(3.) ON these findings of facts which is supported by the reasons, no case for interference on the merits of the matter is made out. However, Shri Ravi Kant vehemently argued that the admitted position is that the petitioner was at that time having a power connection of 25 H.P. and therefore the tariff which has been applied in the amended bill, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -8 through supplementary affidavit, requires correction. It was contended by Shri Sudhir Agarwal in response to the aforesaid argument that if the petitioner can be taken to be a medium consumer then the tariff in theft cases is 50 that is 50 is the fixed factor, and, if the consumer can be classified into a large and industrial consumer, the tariff applicable will be.75 as fixed factor. It was vehemently argued by Shri Ravi Kant that after all these ordeals this small matter may be entertained by this court on the special facts and circumstances of the present case and further that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the appellate authority or the assessing authority. However, since it is a question of applicability of the exact tariff i.e., fixed factor, the matter shall have to go before the appellate authority to apply the correct fixed factor.;