TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 21.4.2000 (Annexure -10) passed by the respondent No. 2 disposing off the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed on 28.1.2000 in CWJC No. 3625 of 1999 (R) (Annexure -8). By reason of the said impugned order dated 21.4.2000, the respondent No. 2 held that there was prima facie allegation of theft of energy against the petitioner and therefore Clause 16.9 of the Tariff was applicable.
(2.) THE petitioner further prays for quashing of the Bills raised pursuant to the said order dated 21.4.2000 on the ground that the same is not as per the directions given in the impugned order nor is it in accordance with the formula meant to be followed as per Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff. The petitioner also makes a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the electric connection of the petitioners factory having Consumer No. HGAP 85 which, according to the petitioner, was illegally disconnected on 3.12.1999 on the basis of an inspection report prepared on the same day by a team of officials of the Board. According to the petitioner an inspection was made in the factory premises of the petitioner on 3.12.1999 and the only deficiency reported was that one of the seal bits in the CTPT (Current Transformer Potential Transformer) Unit was found broken. On the basis of the inspection report, an FIR was also lodged on the same day i.e. on 3.12.1999 and the allegation made in the FIR, as per the petitioner, is based on three points namely : - - (i) That by tampering the seal bit, the petitioner was indulging in large - scale theft of electricity; (ii) That the factory of the petitioner was working in three shifts and working on a load of 261.1 kw. On the basis of running of the factory on 22.9 hours per day for full 365 days the petitioners consumption should have been 1,82,284 units per month but on an average the petitioners average consumption was 1,14,289 units per month and as such the petitioner was indulging in theft of 1,82,264 - -1,14,289 - 66,966 units at the rate of Rs. 3.17 per unit. Thereby, the petitioner had caused a loss of (66,966 units x Rs. 3.17 units x 12 month) = Rs. 25,85,000.00 per year to the Board. (iii) That against 2.65 units per cubic meter consumption of oxygen gas, the Units consumption per cubic meter for the. months of October and November, 1999 was 1.46 units per cubic meter which confirms theft of electricity.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it has not committed any offence whatsoever and the explanation which the petitioner has to offer are as follows : A. There are total seals in the CTPT units and these seals were put in December, 1998 when the electronic meter was installed. All these seals bits are out in the open wheather and one of the seal bits had broken and fallen in respect of which the petitioners company had informed the Electricity Department on 1.11.1999. B. That in relation to the allegation made in the FIR relating to the breaking of seal bits, the petitioner had already informed the authorities of the Board on 1.11.1999 that one of the seal bits had broken and fallen down and the seal bit which was allegedly found tampered and broken during the course of inspection was also in a precarious condition. C. In relation to the allegation that the monthly consumption should be 1,82,264 units but it was only 1,14,298 units per month thereby proving that the petitioner had indulged in theft of 66,966 units per month, the petitioner has submitted that this allegation is extremely far fetched as calculation has been made on the basis of 365 days a year and that too at the rate of 23 hours per day and no consideration has been taken about the heavy load shedding prevalent in the State, including power tripping, low voltage, gazetted holidays, weekly holidays and/or statutory holidays or strikes or bandhs which are a regular feature. According to the petitioner therefore, this figure is absolutely inflated and imaginary. So far the allegation regarding consumption of 2.65 units per cubic meter in the month of October, 1999 and 1.46 units per cubic meter in the month of November 1999, the same have been made in such a manner so that prima facie it seems that the petitioner has indulged in the theft of electricity but the correct fact is that the informant very conveniently did not mention the variation in the units readings. In fact, for the month of October, 1998 the reading was for a period of 43 days and for the month of November, 1999 the reading was for a period of 24 days whereas the reading for October is for the period 27.7.1999 (which is evident from the bill of September 1999) to 9.11.1999 which is evident from the bill of October 1999 i.e. for a period of 43 days and the reading for the month of November is for a period of 9.11.1999 to 3.12.1999 i.e. for a period of 24 days. The informant, while calculating the unit consumption per cubic meter has deliberately not mentioned this fact. According to the petitioner, the mode of calculation should be as per the formula given below which would show that if the unit consumption is reduced or enhanced proportionately to 30 days, then the unit consumption per cubic meter would be 1.84 units per cubic meter for October 1999 and 1.83 units per cubic meter for the month of November 1999 and as such, there is absolutely no discrepancy so far the unit consumption per cubic meter is concerned and it is really a fallacy which the informant has tried to create so as to implicate the petitioner in a false case. As per the FIR Allegation : October 99 (10/99) Consumption 2.65 unis per cubic meter. November 99 (11/99) Consumption 1.46 units per cubic meter. Units consumed by the petitioner for October and November, 99 9.11.1999 - - 43 days = 1,63763 units. 3.12.1999 - - 24 days = 86,571 units. Production - -Calendar month - -only oxygen Units consumed by the petitioner for October and November, 99 9.11.1999 - - 43 days = 1,63763 units. 3.12.1999 - - 24 days = 86,571 units. Production - -Calendar month - -only oxygen For October, 1999 = 1,63,673 units for 43 days ................... = 2.65 units/Cum 61,728.5 Cum for 30 days For November, 1999 = 86,571 units for 24 days ................... = 1.46 units/Cum If the unit consumption is reduced and enhanced proportionately to 30 days then the unit consumption per cum. is as follows : For October, 1999 = 1,63.673 units for 43 days. Proportionately for 30 days = 1,63,673 units __________________________________________________________________ 43 x 30 - - 1,14,190 units. 1,14,190 units ___________________________________ 61,726/Cum = 1.84 units/Cum For November, 1999 = 86,571 units for 24 days Proportionately for 30 days = 86.571 __________________________________________________________________ 24 x 30 - - 1,08,213 units Therefore consumption per cum 1,08,213 units __________________________________________________________________ 8,892 = 1.83 units/Cum;