VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE determination of the writ is based on the application of Clause 16.4.1 of the 1993 tariff which reads as follows : - - The Transformer capacity of H.T. and E.H.T. consumers shall not be more than 150 per cent of the contract demand. If any consumer is found violating this provision his sanctioned connection will be disconnected. The vires of this provision of the tariff has been upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, in this writ only point to be examined is whether the audit objection dated 26.4.99 and the bills dated 26.11.99 (Annexure -5 and 7) are in conformity with the decisions of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court 1994 (II) PLJR 103.
(2.) IN the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment one direction was given while upholding the virus of 16.4.1 of the tariff that for arranging additional resources and also for procuring new transformer six months time should be considered a reasonable period for this purpose. In fact this has been one of the arguments of the petitioners in this case for challenging the bills and also the notice of disconnection issued (Annexure -1). The short facts are that the petitioners had a sanctioned load of 200 KVA. Thus because of the aforesaid tariff they were entitled to use a transformer of a capacity of 300 KVA (200 x 150% = 300 KVA) only but it was detected that they were using a transformer of 350 KVA capacity. This fact is not denied. A notice was served upon the petitioner (Annexure -1) giving three directions (i) either to purchase a transformer of 300 KVA capacity or (ii) to increase the demand to 233 KVA (iii) and to entire into a agreement with the respondent in that regard and ultimately a direction was given that if within 15 days the petitioner did not comply the aforesaid direction then the petitioners supply would be disconnected and the proceeding for realization of revenue would be initiated. It was also informed that it should be treated as notice before any action. This notice was issued on 31.3.98. Relying on Division Bench Judgment upholding the vires the petitioner claims that six months time should have been given to the petitioner. The said judgment was delivered on 18.4.94 and was reported in 1994 itself, whereas the notice aforesaid was issued five years after the said decision. Consequent to that notice the petitioner themselves made a representation that they were contemplating either for reducing or enhancing the load (Annexure -2) and ultimately by Annexure -3 they informed the board respondent that they had decided to expand the load and requested for enhancement of the load by 80 KVA, meaning thereby, enhancing of the load from 200 KVA to 280 KVA and they filed a requisition in the prescribed Performa furher. Then it appears that vide Annexure -5 an audit team of the respondent board raised an objection that because of no action taken on Annexure -3 and no disconnection having been made the Board had suffered a loss. This audit objection made on 26.4.99 and soon thereafter the Annexure -4 was issued demanding payment of the arrears bill, pursuant thereto a representation was made Annexure 6 by the petitioner referring to certain oral discussion between the petitioner and the superintending engineer concerned expressing grievance that the load was not extended/Increased, consequent to which in absence of any action by the respondent no agreement could have been entered into for the enhanced load but no reply was given and ultimately the impugned bill (Annexure -7) was issued.
(3.) THE respondent appeared but did not file any counter affidavit stating that this writ may be decided as only point of law is involved.;