- (1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents not to levy any charge for the period 5-2-2000 to 12-5-2000 during which period his electric line was disconnected by the Board and also for quashing the bill for the month of May, 2000 so far as it relates to maximum demand charges.
(2.) Petitioner is a High Tension consumer having contract demand of 1067 KVA. Petitioner's case is that earlier it had a contract demand 900 KVA but because of the capacity of the transformer installed in the factory premises of the petitioner the contract demand was increased. It appears that on 17-9-1999 a routine inspection was made in the factory premises of the petitioner and the meter was paper sealed on that day by the inspecting team. A second inspection was also made one week thereafter i.e. on 23-7-1999 and it was found that during the period between 17-3-1999 to 28-7-1999 the consumption was 54602 units. The respondent - Board, therefore, lodged F. I. R. against the petitioner under S. 379 of the I. P. C. and S. 39 and 40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is indulging in theft of electricity. The respondent-Board raised supplementary bill of Rs. 1,38,28,593.00 and the line was disconnected on 29-7-1999. The petitioner challenged the action of the Board in raising the bill by filing CWJC No. 2290/1999. This Court, by order dated 2-9-1999, quashed the impugned bill and remanded back the matter to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Electricity Board to hear the matter afresh and pass orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that immediately thereafter, the petitioner requested the Board to restore the electric line but the same was not restored. The petitioner, thereafter, filed CWJC No. 3062/99R and this Court, vide order dated 14-10-19999, directed the Board to restore the supply of electricity and, accordingly, it was restored on 23-10-1999. Petitioner's case is that after its line was disconnected on 5-2-2000 the petitioner received current monthly bill for the month of April, 2000 in which the respondent-Board charged maximum demand charge for the entire month. The electric line of the petitioner was restored on 13-5-2000 but in the bill for the month of May, 2000 the respondents charged maximum demand charges for April, 2000.
(3.) Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Board has charged maximum demand charges on the basis of KVA reading of 1280 which was for the month of February, 2000 when the line of the petitioner was disconnected. The Board illegally levied KVA charges for the entire period although line was restored only on 13-5-2000. Learned counsel submitted that the Board is not entitled to levy maximum demand charges for the period when there was no supply of electricity in the premises of the petitioner. 0;