VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been filed (i) for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to restore the electric connection of the petitioner -factory which was disconnected on 26.8.1999 on the basis of an inspection made in which 12 HP has been illegally added to the load of 77.5 HP; (ii) for restoration of the electric connection of the petitioner -factory as the disconnection was made in violation of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act (for short, as the Act); (iii) for a declaration that the lighting load in any industry cannot be added with the connected load of the consumer for the purpose of calculation of the total connected load; and (iv) for a direction upon the respondents not to raise any bill on the basis of the said inspection report by holding that the petitioner has exceeded the contract demand and for issuance of any other relief.
(2.) DURING the course of hearing of the writ application, it has been submitted that the connection has already been restored; consequently, the prayer relating to restoration of the connection has now become infructuous. But the inspection dated 26.8.1999, on the basis of which the disconnection was made, will be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the rest of raised issues in this writ application. Thus, the following two questions are relevant ; (i) whether the respondents can add lighting load to the load of the machine installed in the factory for the purpose of calculation of the entire load and whether the lighting load in a consumer factory would be treated to be a separate load; and (ii) whether a bill on the basis of other commercial tariff or domestic tariff to be raised in respect thereof. The petitioner is a small scale industry firm. For doing its business, it had entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board, which, according to the petitioner, is a State; for connection of electric supply, under LTIS Tariff and initially it had a connected load of 99 HP. As per the new Tariff effective from 1.7.1993, the consumers having load of upto 79 HP were to remain LTIS consumers. Therefore, the petitioner on 21.6.1993, wrote a letter to (Annexure 1) to the respondents to reduce the petitioners load from 99 HP to 79 HP because under the old tariff the consumer who had electrical load upto 99 HP was to be treated as LTIS consumer. Consequent upon its letter, the factory was inspected on 19.7.1993 and the total connected load of the petitioner was found to be 79 HP. In this inspection note (Annexure 2), the lighting load of the petitioners factory was not taken into consideration. The only load connected with the electrical motors were taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the current load. The bill was being paid by the petitioner on the basis of the 79 HP under LTIS Tariff and no current charge was due against the petitioner. Time to time, it is asserted by the petitioner, the factory was inspected but never the load beyond the connected load was detected. Then on 7.12.1998 an electronic meter was installed by the Board itself in the factory and no anomaly was detected in respect of the connected load. Annexure 3 is the meter replacement report. Then a theft occurred in the petitioners premises and the petitioner lodged an FIR (Annexure 4), and thereafter for the security of the factory, the petitioner installed Additional Vapor and Halogen Lamps in the factory premises and also at some other places in office and also where the security guards were deputed, after purchasing these lamps (Annexure 5), the petitioner thereafter filed a writ application being CWJC No. 957 of 1997 (R) for a direction upon the respondents not to raise bills on the basis of Monthly Minimum Guarantee charges (for short MMG), rater on the basis of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges (for short AMG). The said writ application was disposed of along with many other writ applications (Annexure 6), and it was held that the Board is not entitled to raise any bill on the basis of MMG but rather on the basis of AMG, besides a direction that the Board cannot raise bill on the. basis of HP, rather it can raise bill on the basis of BHP. Even thereafter, the respondents continued to raise bill on the basis of MMG. Therefore, as it was being done in violation of the order aforesaid, the petitioner wrote letter (Annexure 7), to the respondents to rectify the bills which is apparent from Annexure 8. This, according to the petitioner, annoyed the respondents. As the petitioner threatened them of contempt proceedings, they got the premises inspected on 26.8.1999 and an inspection report (Annexure 9) was prepared by them and this report, according to the petitioner, was erroneous because even 77.5 HP. Connected load was wrongly calculated because item No. 16 of the inspection note says that it is of 7 HP whereas in the earlier inspection with regard to this machine only 2 HP has been shown. But in this inspection note, in order to harass the consumer, the respondents added the lighting load of 9 KW or 12 HP. Thus, the total connected load was taken as 89.54 HP. In para 24 of the writ application, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that only connected load of the motors had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of load and the word used in the Tariff was "connected load" and in common parlance, "connected load" was known as connected load of the motors connected to the machines and not lighting load. Therefore, lighting load could not be added with the connected toad for the purpose of calculation, so it is mala fide and because of this calculation, the disconnection was made, which has been discussed earlier. The petitioner apprehends that the bill on the basis of inspection report would be raised on the basis of HT and the respondents have threatened to do so.
(3.) THE respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit, denying that the supply was disconnected in pursuance of the inspection note dated 26.8.1999. It was averred by the respondents that the petitioner had already entered into an agreement with the Board for consumption of 79 HP load, which was to be treated as sanctioned load and therefore, the petitioner would not consume beyond the contracted load because the petitioner is supposed to avail load within the sanctioned load and in its exercise, it can segregate the total load in accordance with its utility, but within the contracted load. The petitioner is supposed to avail within that 79 HP to "meet its requirements" and if the petitioner is allowed to avail beyond the load of 79 HP, the agreement executed between the parties will be meaningless and it will be a breach of the term of contract. With regard to the report submitted on 19.7.1993 (Annexure 2), it has been averred by the respondents that it was a meter replacement report and on that date, the load was found to be 75 HP and the remaining load which was being consumed for lighting was spared, otherwise the load would have been more than 79 HP, which will be clear from the inspection report dated 26.8.1999 (Annexure 9). It was denied that the factory premises was inspected from time to time and no load more than the sanctioned load was detected. It was further averred that admittedly the petitioner was availing the power of lighting etc. to the extent of 9 KW, but on the other hand, the petitioner was not accepting the total load of 89.54 HP, which is not justified on the part of the petitioner. With regard to the connected load, it has been said that the interpretation of the connected load by the petitioner is wrong and it has been added that if the load of the motor is calculated for the purpose of calculating the connected load, then the lighting load of 9 KW should also be considered. With regard to the notice under Section 24(1) of the Act, it has been submitted that show cause to the petitioner is not required to be given because the opportunity had already been given to the petitioner by the Board to regularise the supply as per HT tariff as the petitioner was availing the power of 89.54 HP.;