- (1.) This writ petition has been taken out principally seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities of WBSEB to reassess the dues claimed by the board for the period from March 1999 to October 2000. The petitioner says that such dues should be reassessed on the basis of average of the bills sent by the board for the period from the year 1996 to the year 1998.
(2.) Admittedly dues claimed by the board on account of consumption of electricity by the petitioner during the period from March 1999 to October 2000 were not paid. He was operating a husking mill. Disputing the correctness of the bills raised from the month of March 1999 he moved a writ petition (No. 10722 (W) of 1999) before this Court. Order dated May 21, 1999 made in that writ petition is as follows :- "Considering urgency of the matter I request Mr. C. R. Panda to appear on behalf of the WBSEB and to take instruction in this matter. A copy of the writ petition shall be served upon Mr. Panda and I direct the WBSEB to regularise his engagement. In the event there is any outstanding dues on account of the electricity bills to be paid by the petitioner and if the petitioner pays 50% of the outstanding bills then the electricity supply line shall not be disconnected by the WBSEB and this line will continue until further order of this Court. Let the matter appear before the appropriate bench as listed motion one week after summer vacation. In the event the payment has been made the concerned station superintendent shall enquire into this matter and if nothing is due then the supply line shall not be disconnected."
(3.) Because of the interim order board authorities did not take any steps for some time. Ultimately on October 19, 2001 they disconnected supply to the petitioner. By order dated June 28, 2005 that writ petition was dismissed. That order is set out below :- "Mr. Lahiri, appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not want to proceed with this matter. It is incidentally to be recorded that I granted an interim order in this matter directing to make payment 50% of the alleged demand of the Board. Such payment has not yet been made. Mr. Tapan Kumar Jana, the learned lawyer who represented this matter made a communication to the Board that this Court passed an unconditional order of injunction. For this reason no payment was made. Under what circumstances such communication was made has not been enquired into by this Court, as the matter is not proceeded with. In view of the aforesaid submission and statement I dismiss this matter as not being pressed. However, liberty is given to take out a fresh one, if so permissible under the law. Mr. Jana, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner agrees that this has been done with his specific knowledge as he appeared when the order was passed. The affidavits are kept with the record. There will be no order as to costs.";