I.P.MUKERJI, J. - (1.) FACTS AND CONTENTIONS: The writ petitioner is the owner of a husking mill. He wants electricity supply to run this mill. He is aggrieved by the estimate given by the respondent licensee to effect such supply. The case of the petitioner is like this. The husking mill is situated in a village in Dakshin Dinajpur. The writ petitioner made an application to the respondent licensee for grant of electricity supply to this mill. They issued him a quotation dated 18th February 2008 on 25th February 2008. According to this quotation, the writ petitioner had to pay Rs.37,215/- to get the connection. Its break up of the quotation is as follows: Security Deposit for 25 HP Rs.30,700/-, Provisional Service Charges Rs.4415/- and Materials Rs.2100/-. He filed a writ application in this court in 2009 being W.P. No. 5533(W) of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the respondent licensee in effecting electricity supply to him. That writ application was disposed of at the court application stage in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondent licensee, on 17th August 2009 by Pinaki Chandra Ghose J. by directing the respondent licensee to consider the application of the writ petitioner for grant of electricity supply within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of that order.
(2.) That order was passed some one and half years after the quotation dated 18th February 2008. At the time of passing of that order, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent licensee had indicated to this Court that the earlier quotation had been issued by mistake or that the earlier quotation was a part quotation or that it did not include the cost of the transformer. As I have already noted, the earlier quotation had taken into account that the husking mill of the petitioner required 25HP of electrical energy.
(3.) Now at the time of consideration, pursuant to the order dated 17th August 2009 of Pinaki Chandra Ghose J., the respondent licensee revised its quotation from Rs.37,215/- to Rs.82,411/-on 30th September, 2009. The increase in the estimate was attributable, according to them to the proportionate cost of installing a transformer. Although the determination pursuant to the order of this court does not mention transformer cost, but in the affidavit-in-opposition the revised quotation is sought to be justified on that ground. In the reasons for the revised estimate it is only mentioned that Rs.3756 per KVA was being charged additionally.;