A.K.Sengupta, J. - (1.) This appeal by West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is directed against the judgment dated, 5th April, 1990, passed by the learned trial Judge holding that the demand of additional security by the Board was illegal. Shortly stated the facts are that by an agreement entered by and between the Board and the respondent in 1961, the respondent furnished a bank guarantee as and by way of security deposit in the sum of Rs. 9,650/-. Although from time to time the rate of tariff was increased, no fresh security was demanded by the Board from the respondent. By Memo dated, 30th June, 1987, the Senior Accounts Officer of the Board directed the respondent to resubmit the Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- as against the existing security deposit of Rs. 9,650/- and if such bank guarantee was not furnished by July 15, 1987, the Board would disconnect the line without any reference. The respondent prayed for exemption from payment of the said security deposit at the enhanced rate. This was not acceded to by the Board. It was stated that such enhanced security deposit was sought from all bulk consumers, big or small. According to the Board, the security deposit which was initially directed to be paid was found 'insufficient on the basis of the consumption of electricity and that quantum of electric energy and the tariff for electrical energy supplied to the respondent had substantially gone up. On the basis of average consumption for 2 months, such security deposit in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was demanded from the respondent.
(2.) The learned Judge was of the view that clause (vi) of the schedule of the Indian Electricity Act does not confer any power upon the Board or licensee to demand security deposit on the basis of the average monthly bill. Being aggrieved the Board has preferred this appeal. The stay application came up for hearing before the Division Bench presided over by the learned Chief Justice.
(3.) The Division Bench adjourned the hearing to enable the Board to consider a proposal regarding security deposit in respect of all types of consumers. The Board accordingly considered the matter at its meeting held on June 12, 1990. The resolution/decision taken at the said Board meeting is found annexed as Annexure "A" to the supplementary affidavit of Jyotirindra Nath Roy, Chief Engineer, Commercial, affirmed on July 28, 1990. Since this a subsequent development which has taken place during the pendency of the appeal and it is relevant for the purpose of considering the dispute arising for consideration the present case, the Appeal Bench permitted the said resolution/decision being placed on record. The parties agreed that the dispute arising out of the resolution/decision be also adjudicated upon in the present proceeding. Accordingly this appeal is being heard on the validity of the said resolution.;