- (1.) The petitioners are questioning the validity of the bill dated September 14, 2010 (at p.52) raised by Durgapur Projects Limited, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. For overdrawal during the restricted hours the licensee has claimed Rs.18 lakh odd. Except this amount, the petitioners have paid the balance of the bill. The licensee has disconnected supply. It is to be noted that the petitioners have questioned the vires of the regulation under which the licensee has claimed Rs.18 lakh odd for overdrawal during the restricted hours.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for admission and an order directing the licensee to reconnect supply unconditionally. His submission is this. Supply was disconnected without issuing any notice under s.56. In any case, the petitioners have paid more than the amount payable under s.56, and hence in the face of the dispute raised by them the licensee could not disconnect supply. Counsel for the licensee has submitted that it is wrong to say that supply was disconnected without notice. According to him, the licensee gave the petitioners notice two times.
(3.) I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit the petition. Vires of the regulation in question is to be examined. Whether the disconnection was illegal is to be examined and if the petitioners are entitled to compensation, order for the purpose will be made. But I do not find any reason to direct the licensee to reconnect supply unconditionally. In my opinion, supply should be reconnected only if the sum of Rs.18 lakh odd not yet paid in terms of the bill is paid by the petitioners.;