- (1.) Two several provisional assessments both dated 7th August, 2004, purporting to have been made under Clause 22(J) of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity are under challenge in this writ petition. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances the case are as follows.
(2.) The writ petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar. The writ petitioner No. 2 is younger brother of the said Shri Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar. Both the writ petitioners are the recorded consumers of electricity. The service connection provided to the writ petitioner No. 1 is A/3402/1 under consumer No. E 300042. The service connection provided to the writ petitioner No. 2 is A/4214/1 under consumer No. E300063. Their case is that they are law-abiding citizens. They have regularly been paying the bills raised upon them for electricity consumed. They have two several small businesses (i) wheat grinding machine (ii) Ice-cream factory. They never indulged in any unfair practice in the matter of consumption of electricity. They have disclosed receipted bills upto July 2004. The last date of reading of the meters is 30th July, 2004 in the case of both the writ petitioners. On 31st July 2004 which was a Saturday, at about 10 P.M. in the night supply of electricity was disconnected. On 2nd August, 2004 the respondent No. 4, the Station Manager, at about 21 -40 hours filed two several First Information Reports alleging that unauthorised consumption of electricity by hooking was detected. There is an allegation in both the First Information Reports that after de-hooking, the supply of electricity was also disconnected. The copies of seizure list go to show that cut out and hooking wire were seized by the respondent No. 4 in the presence of three witnesses. All of them are the employees of the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to for brevity as 'Board'). Three several letters all dated 5th August, 2004, have been disclosed by the Board purporting to have been written one each by the writ petitioners and the husband of the writ petitioner No. 1. The writ petitioner No. 2 in his letter appears to have contended that although the service connection No. A/4241/1 is recorded in his name, he is no way connected either with the supply of electricity or with the business which he has already relinquished in favour of his elder brother Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar. Shri Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar and the writ petitioner No. 1, the husband and wife, appear to have written to the respondent No. 4 that during their absence at the instigation of others their son indulged in unathorised consumption of electricity although they did never before indulge in any such illegal activity nor did the illegal act of their son have their approval. They appear to have requested by their aforesaid letters that after making assessment for minimum period, electricity should be restored upon payment of 1/4th of the assessed amount and the balance amount may be allowed to be paid in installments. The respondent No. 4 on 7th August, 2004 made the impugned provisional assessment at a sum of Rs. 1,08,296/- for the writ petitioner No. 1 and at a sum of Rs. 1,57,709-02 paisa for the writ petitioner No. 2. Both the writ petitioners paid 25% of the aforesaid provisionally assessed amount between 17th and 18th August, 2004 and electricity thereafter was restored but was disconnected once again for non-payment of subsequent instalments. The writ petitioner No. 1 on 19th August, 2004 and the writ petitioner No. 2 on 25th August, 2004 wrote two several identical letters to the respondent No.4 alleging that the said respondent resorted to arm twisting method for the purpose of extorting money. The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :- "With due respect I beg to state that by an overreaction on your part my Electric connection was disconnectioned on 31.7.2004 as I failed to comply your demand for paying Biswakarma Puja subscription. You by accompanying with the police, illegally disconnected my service connection. I did not default in paying the bill. My bills are clear and paid up-to-date. No notice for disconnection was made. You lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Nakashipara Police Station against myself illegally alleging that by hooking, I was enjoying Electricity. No hooking material was found, no seizure list was prepared, despite that you disconnected my service connection. Your claim is illegal and I am not bound by the said letter. Repeatedly I told you for restoration of my connection but you did not. However, I was under compulsion of running my business, I deposited a sum of Rs.27,074-00 on 17.8.2004 and you restored connection. The said sum to be adjusted with the next bills and you are bound to pay interest over the same. Although you realised a sum of Rs. 27,074-00 against consumer No. E 30004 which is the consumer number of myself but you disconnected my service connection illegally. I have no other consumer number. My meter was checked on 30.7.2004 and bill was raised accordingly."
(3.) These letters were duly received by the respondent No. 4 on 19th August, 2004 and 25th August, 2004, but do not appear to have been replied to by the Station Manager, the respondent No. 4 herein. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Station Manager it appears that he was in fact the Chairman of the Biswakarma Puja Committee. He, however, has denied that any demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was made by him from the writ petitioners as alleged by them. He has admitted that on 30th July 2004, he personally read both the meters "and found the readings are very poor". He has disclosed in his affidavit that Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar has a domestic connection. His supply was also disconnected and subsequently restored upon payment, of the assessed amount, by him. The writ petitioners in their reply have disowned the letters dated 5th August, 2004. According to them these are fabricated letters. They have reiterated that because they refused to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000/- demanded by the respondent No. 4 on account of the Biswakarma Puja, the step of disconnecting supply of electricity was taken and thereafter the disconnection was sought to be justified on the basis of an untrue allegation of hooking and unauthorised consumption. They also have said that payment was made because in illegal exercise of power supply of electricity was disconnected by the respondent No. 4 and the petitioners had no way of surviving. Therefore under compulsion they had to make the payments. It appears that the writ petitioners have already paid altogether a sum of Rs. 1,12,360/- in various installments.;