M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the bill and the demand notice issued by the respondent -Board, whereby Board has demanded electricity charges on the basis of total transformer capacity and also threatened that in the event of non -payment of the bill, the electricity line of the petitioner shall be disconnected.
(2.) THE petitioners case is that in 1991 it has taken HT electric connection with contract demand of 1675 KVA from the respondent -Board and as per 1991 tariff notification the petitioner was entitled to keep 175% of the contract demand i.e. upto 2974 KVA. It is stated that under 1993 tariff notification issued by the Board the transformer capacity of a consumer was reduced from 175% to 150%. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to keep transformer capacity upto 2512 KVA. The petitioners further case is that it has been utilising two transformers at a time each of 1600 KVA and 630 KVA i.e. total 2230 KVA which is well within the permissible limit of 150% of the contract demand. It is contended by the petitioner that it has never consumed electricity beyond the permissible limit of contract demand of 1675 KVA. The petitioners further case is that whenever the metering unit of the petitioner was burnt the petitioner has paid electricity charges to the respondent -Board at much higher rate. In 1995 a new electric meter was installed in the permission of the petitioner and in 1997 the respondent No. 3, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, issued letter dated 15.3.1997 stating Boards tariff limiting transformer capacity of 150% and showed total transformer capacity as 4460 KVA including of SAIL Township. The petitioner said to have explained to the Board that the demand was never exceeded beyond 1500 KVA and there was no need to reduce the transformer capacity nor to increase the contract demand. On 17.7.1997 PC/PT unit of metering burnt and the petitioner requested the Board to replace the same. Thereafter when the Board raised bill for the month of March, 98 the petitioner objected to the said bills. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondents have all along been ensuring replacement of PC/CT unit but the same was not replaced, as a result of which bills for much higher rate of electricity has been charged by the Board. It is stated that the respondent -Board sent bill dated 2.12.1998 for payment of Rs. 55,39,983/ - on account of monthly bill, arrears bill on [he total transformer capacity and on the basis of 2974 KVA consumption of electricity by the petitioner without ascertaining the actual consumption of electricity. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Board. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the Board has mainly taken the following stand : - - "6. That before replying to the averments made in the writ application it is stated : - - (a) R&D Centre was given C.T. connection for 1675 KVA contract demand bearing consumer No. HD/1 on 29.3.1984 on 33 KV supply agreement was executed by the Company and Bihar State Electricity Board on 7.10.1991. In the Tariff of 1993 the Transformer capacity to be installed should not be more than 150% of contract demand (Clause 16.4.1). (b) R&D has installed 2 x 1600 KVA and 2 x 630 KVA Transformer stating that 1 x 1600 and 1 x 630 KVA transformer were kept as Stand by. However, there is no provision for keeping any transformer as Stand by. (c) During inspection 2 x 1600 KVA and 2 x 630 KVA transformers were found installed and connected in the circuit so a letter had been served on the consumer either to reduce the transformer capacity or enhance the contract demand to comply with the provision of the Boards Tariff. As they have not raised as per total transformer capacity of 4460 KVA to 2974 KVA from March, 1998 and they were billed accordingly. (d) Again confirmation by the petitioner vide their letter No. RD/MSD/E -128 dated 23.3.1999 transformer since end of January, 1999. Inspection were made again by the BSEB and they also confirmed that two transformers were out of circuit since January, 1999. Hence billing were done on 2230 KVA (1600 + 630 KVA) only. (e) Therefore, during the period of the transformers having been connected to the circuit i.e. from March, 1998 to January, 1999 the petitioner was requested to pay the amount vide letter No. C&R 264 dated 19.2.2000 and C&R 428 dated 22.3,2000. (f) Supplementary bill for arrear of fuel surcharge was raised as per the Boards 1998 to January, 1999 as the contract demand was raised fuel surcharge was as well charged for the unit charged during that period. Therefore, the bill so raised and notices is not wrong."
(3.) THE respondents further case is that the petitioner made an agreement on 7.10.1991 for 1675 KVA contract demand and installation of four transformers beyond contract demand of 1675 KVA by the petitioner is not regular and exceeds more than 150% of the contract demand. It is contended that the bill for March, 1998 was issued taking into consideration of total transformer capacity i.e. 4460 KVA which is not unrealistic as total transformer capacity was connected with circuit. Lastly it is contended that CT/PT metering unit was burnt in July, 97 and since then average billing was done as per Tariff.;