- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the appellants is that though the petitioners were liable for security amount as well as additional security amount under Section 47 but in view of sub -section (5) of Section 47 of the Act, since the petitioners opted for taking the electricity supply through pre -payment meter then in that situation no security could have been demanded from the existing consumers by the Electricity Board. Petitioners requested for supply of the electricity through pre -payment meter and because of fault of JSEB no such meter has been installed and electricity supply has not been made available to the petitioners through pre -payment meter. The petitioners cannot be penalised for the fault of JSEB. Petitioners first approached a Redressal Forum established by the Board itself who rejected the petitioners and prayer. The petitioners are also aggrieved against the withdrawal of the earlier decision of the Board by which the Board allowed giving of the Bank guarantee for additional security which has been withdrawn by subsequent order dated 8th November, 2012. The petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions, which were decided by learned single Judge by common order dated 9th January, 2013. Learned single Judge held that the licensec Board should have acted promptly for supply of pre -paid meters so that the same could have been installed at the request of the consumers. However, the Board remained sleeping over the matter for a long time. However, the learned single Judge, after considering the arguments as advanced before the learned single Judge, directed the Electricity Board to obtain the pre -payment meter within a period of ten months and install in the premises of the consumers on their request and so far as payment of additional security is concerned the learned single Judge allowed the petitioners to submit applications before the Board for seeking installment upon which, the Board was directed to grant concession of six equal monthly installments so that the additional security payment may be deposited accordingly. How the additional security amount would be adjusted upon installation of the prepaid meter, that also has been taken care of by the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned single Judge has decided the issue in favour of the writ petitioners -appellants yet has not granted the relief and furthermore there was no reason for requiring of depositing of the additional security. It is also submitted that in the alternative the payment by six installments may be increased adequately.
(3.) WE considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. In the facts of the case learned single Judge has very rightly observed that even in a case when the Electricity Board did not act promptly and remain sleeping over the matter for a long period yet passed this equitable order and also gave a good - concession to the petitioners by allowing payment of additional security in six equal installments. In our opinion no interference is called for in the impugned order in any manner either on merits or on even request for increasing of the installments.;