- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) As earlier observed in the order dated 4.12.2009, the controversy relating to the impugned Bill does survive only on the basis of the petitioner's claim that the impugned Bill has been raised by the respondents for payment even for the period during which the electric connection remained withdrawn from 13.5.1997 to January 2004.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to explain that the impugned Bill is not only towards the electric charges, but it also relates to the fuel charges as per the tariff and the impugned Bill has been raised for the period prior to the date of disconnection, from September 1994 to April 1997 and again, for the later period from May 1997 to January 2004. Learned counsel explains that notwithstanding the fact that that the electricity remained disconnected for some period, but such disconnection would not exempt the petitioner from payment of AMG and fixed charges since, on reinspection of the petitioner's premises which was made pursuant to the earlier order of this court, it was found that the petitioner was consuming more than 10 HP load. Consequent thereto, a fresh Bill was raised on the basis of 10 HP load which was extended to the petitioner. Charges towards fuel surcharge was accordingly levied from May 1997 to January 2004. It is also contended that no DPS has been charged from September 1994 to May 1997 and it was only on the arrears of the Bill for the month of August 1994 i.e. on Rs. 20,936/-, that DPS charges have been added in the Bill.;