S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 23.07.2014 whereby, objection to electricity bills dated 13.05.2014 and 04.06.2014 were rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner -M/s. Sheo Shakti Cement Industries is engaged in manufacturing of cement. It has an industrial unit at Hazaribagh for which it was granted electric connection with contract demand of 1067 KVA. On 21.01.2011, a new CTPT Metering Unit was installed though, the previous CTPT was neither burnt nor the petitioner had made a complaint. The replaced CTPT got burnt in the month February, 2014 however, it was replaced on 31.03.2014. The petitioner though, has been paying electric charges regularly, received bill dated 13.05.2014 for Rs. 1,87,82,208/ - for the period February, 2011 to March, 2014. The petitioner filed an application on 25.05.2014 before the Chief Manager -Cum -Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board however, a supplementary bill dated 04.06.2014 for Rs. 1,80,45,968/ - was raised. The Electricity Board filed its reply before the General Manager -Cum -Chief Engineer and vide order dated 23.07.2015, the objection of the petitioner has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) MRS . A.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner filed petitions dated 11.06.2014 and 23.06.2014 for sending the burnt CTPT for testing, the respondent -authority did not advert to the said issue. For the first time in the proceeding before the General Manager -Cum -Chief Engineer, the respondent -Board took a plea of Multiplying Factor however, the respondent -authority has not dealt with this issue also. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure -17, which is a downloaded information on "understanding the multiplier" and submits that though the billing multiplier and the circuit multiplier are available on record, the meter multiplier has not been disclosed by the respondents and therefore, the actual Multiplying Factor cannot be calculated. It is contended that in view of bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent -Board cannot realise the amount raised in the supplementary bill because it was time -barred.;