- (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in these writ applications for which the petitioner, on earlier occasion also, moved this Court by filing a writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 6023 of 2001, is on account of non -settlement of the amount of transmission loss/line loss to which the petitioner claims entitlement under the terms of agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent D.V.C.
(2.) AS explained by Sri M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of the original agreement, the bills for electric consumption was to be raised on the basis of the readings in the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner. This arrangement however, was not followed up in view of the subsequent change in the proposal moved by the respondent D.V.C. under which the energy bills was to be raised on the basis of the readings in the meter installed at the D.V.C. end. Considering the change in the terms of agreement, the petitioner had agreed to the proposal but subject to the condition that the supplier/respondent D.V.C., should bear the transmission loss. This counter offer of the petitioner was accepted by the D.V.C. authorities and an understanding was arrived at between them for working out a reasonable basis for calculating the transmission loss/line loss, within 30 days from the date of energizing the electric connection. It appears that though the electric connection was energized and the petitioner started to avail the benefit of electric supply, but in the monthly bills raised by the respondent D. V.C., no reduction towards transmission loss was made. The petitioner filed several representations before the concerned authorities of the respondents for calculating and assessing the transmission loss and to give the benefit of concession thereof, but when no response was obtained, he filed a writ application.
(3.) WHILE disposing of the writ application, this Court had directed the concerned authorities of the respondents to take a final decision in the matter of grant of transmission loss to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents were further directed to revise all the bills and thereafter the excess amount paid by the petitioner as against the bills already raised by the respondents, was to be refunded to the petitioner or adjusted against the future bills.;