SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner challenges the final order dated 12.012.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority (being the Chief Engineer) WBSEB. By the impugned order the statutory Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that the provisional bill as well as final bill served upon the writ petitioner are in order. According to the appellant, the said order passed by the Appellate Authority is without any reason and mainly based on surmise and conjecture.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is such that in terms of the general conditions of supply, the WBSEB may make provisional assessment of the alleged damages and further they may claim amount in terms of the provisions of the said clause but in any case such notice of such claim has to be served upon the consumer within a month from the date of inspection. The said time limit relating to service of the provisional assessment may be relaxed under Clause 22 (K) of the general conditions of supply. It is the specific case of the petitioner, that such relaxation does not permit the Board to make the provisional assessment after the prescribed period. According to the petitioner, in the present case the Board, along with the notice under Clause 22 (K) sent a copy of the notice under Clause 22 (J). So according to him, such provisional claim itself is bad in law.
(3.) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order dated 22.12.2005 ex facie makes it clear that the final assessment has been made beyond the period of sixty days as well as beyond the extended period which would be evident from the letter dated 25.08.2001 itself.;