VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD both sides and perused the writ, counter affidavit and rejoinder.
(2.) THE questions to be answered in this writ are : (a) Whether on the expiry of one year of notice to determine the high tension agreement, the agreement ceases to exist and the respondents are duly bound to issue the bills on the basis of low tension tariff, (b) whether respondents are bound to raise the bills from the month of February, 1996 on the basis of low tension tariff especially when the respondents have been all along accepting the bills (c) whether respondents are duty bound to take average consumption on the basis of three months average when the meter was working properly i.e. March, April and May 1995 or on the basis of three months average when the new meter may be installed in the premises of the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner vide Annexure -1 and 2 wrote letter to the respondents for conversion of HT agreement into LT agreement. When it was not done, the petitioner filed a writ (CWJC No. 976 of 1996 (R), which was disposed of by order contained in Annexure 3. By that order letter dated 14.2.1995 was directed to be considered as a notice determining the said HT agreement, orders were also passed restraining the respondents from disconnecting the power supply, if the petitioner paid the arrears of bill as per direction given in that writ.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, as the letter dated 14.2.1995 (Annexure -2) was treated to be a notice for determination of the HT Agreement, after expiry of the period of 12 months of the said notice, the agreement ceased to exist and stood determined and consequently, after that the respondents cannot raise bills as per HT Tariff, rather, bills should have been raised as per LT Tariff. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner went on paying the bills and it was accepted by the respondent, therefore, any demand of surcharge, levy and interest on the accumulated bills as per HT Tariff cannot be charged by the respondents and as the respondents have accepted the payment as per LT Tariff, they cannot claim payment as per HT Tariff. Further case of the petitioner is that the meter remained defective from June 1995 onwards but the bills were raised even thereafter on the basis of MMG or on the basis of Minimum Base Charges though the respondents should have raised the bills on the three months average basis when the meter was working properly i.e. for the months of March, April and May, 1995. The petitioners further case is that the petitioner made payment in order to evade any coercive step by way of disconnection. Consequently, the petitioner prayed (i) for revising bills as per LTS Tariff w.e.f. February, 1996 on the basis of LT Tariff, in view of his application for conversion (ii) a direction to the respondents to change the meter and to raise bills on average of three months when the meter was in order or the average of three months of the reading of the new meter to be installed with a further prayer to quash the bills for the month of January 1998 and also the arrears for January 1998 onwards which was calculated as per HT Tariff.;