Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) THE basic question to be answered in this writ petition is whether bills on H.T. Tariff can be raised from a Consumer, whose and whether such a consumer, if he expresses his intention for getting his load reduced, for remaining in L.T. Category, a new L.T. Agreement is required to be executed?
(2.) THE aforesaid question arose out of the facts that the petitioner held a L.T. agreement with a sanctioned load of 80 HP. It was admittedly a Low Tension Agreement. When a surprise inspection was made in the year 1990, Annexure -1, the petitioner was found to be using load of 69.5 HP. According to the petitioner, there is a provision for conversion of the existing LTS having connected load of 80 HP into a HTS consumer. After coming of the Tariff, the respondents raised bill against the petitioner on the basis of H.T. Tariff, which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal, so the petitioner requested the respondents to revise the bills on the basis of the LTS Agreement and the respondents assured correction, but as it was not corrected, the payment was stopped with effect from February, 1997, as the respondents were sitting tight over the matter and were not taking necessary steps for correcting the aforesaid bills. Therefore, the petitioner applied for reduction of the sanctioned load of 80 HP to 70 HP on 1.5.1997, the premises was inspected on 5.6.1997 and the connected load was found to be 69.5 HP, Annexure -5. On the basis of that report, the Electrical Executive Engineer sought permission from the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Elec. Supply, for reduction of the sanctioned load of the petitioner from 80 HP to 70 HP and also a permission to raise the bills against the petitioner under the LTIS Tariff, Annexure -6. The Superintending Engineer did not take any action and the bills were again raised during the year 1996 -97, 1997 -98. 1999 -2000 and the dues became Rs. 10,25,920.23. Annexure -7. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice and was asked to make payment, otherwise Certificate proceeding would be filed against it, Annexure -8 and ultimately, a notice was issued under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing (i) the energy bills, Annexure -7, (ii) of the Certificate Proceeding, Annexure -8, (iii) for a declaration that the disconnection of the Electrical Connection on 1.5.1997 was without any notice and in violation of the Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act and (iv) also for a declaration that the petitioner was entitled to be served the energy bills on the basis of the LTIS Tariff. The respondents appeared and contested the ease. According to the respondents, the petitioner was using 80 HP load, which comes under the H.T. Category under the new Tariff and the security deposited under the LTIS was considered to be the security deposited for the H.T. Agreement and in spite of several intimation, the petitioner did not execute the H.T. Agreement and went on accepting the bills as per the H.T. Tariff and the petitioner, in spite of the best efforts, did not comply the formalities. The notice was served for filing Certificate Proceeding, but the petitioner did not take any action and did not file any objection, Annexure -C. The bills were raised as per the HTS -1 Clause 3(6) of the Tariff and the petitioner is entitled to reconnection/fresh connection only after payment of the dues along with dues accrued for the discontinued period.
(3.) THE new Tariff was noticed on June, 23, 1995 in the official gazette. Clause 3 of the Tariff reads as follows : - - "3 (a) The terms and conditions for supply of electricity as also the rate of tariff as contained in the tariff schedule to the notification shall, where applicable, amend, add to and/or replace the corresponding part of the previous tariff. (b) Where the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the Board and its consumers are at variance with the terms and conditions as contained in this notification the latter shall prevail and such agreement will be deemed to have been amended accordingly." There is no dispute on the point that the sanctioned load of 80 HP under the New Tariff does not fall in the category of High Tension though it was under the LTIS category under the Old Tariff. Obviously because of the mischief of the Clause 3 of the Tariff, there was a deemed conversion of the LTIS agreement into an H.T. Agreement and rightly the Board then treated the said connection as H.T. Connection and raised bills accordingly on the basis of the H.T. Tariff.;