B.B.MANGALMURTI,J. - (1.) Instant appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 28th February, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.1098 of 2017 by the learned First Court whereby the respondents was directed to serve upon the petitioner the assessment order and the supplementary bill pertaining to consumption of electricity within a period of two weeks in terms of Clause 11.9 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2015. The Court has further observed that it is upto the appellant/petitioner to liquidate the liability arising out of such assessment or to wait for the outcome of the criminal case pending before the Special Court.
(2.) The short fact of the case is that the appellant, owner of a rice mill engaged in manufacturing and processing of rice, took an electrical connection from Jharkhand State Electricity Board with the sanctioned load of 40 H.P. on Low Tension Scheme for the rice mill from a 100 K.V.A. transformer in the year 1999 and accordingly agreement was entered in between the parties on 3rd April, 2000 under L.T.I.S. Tariff. Thereafter, an additional load of 15 H.P. was sanctioned on 1st March, 2005 which was later on enhanced to 90 H.P. on 15th April, 2006. The sanctioned load of 90 H.P. was enhanced to 103 H.P. on 21st April, 2010 and agreement for this enhanced load was executed between the parties. The further case of the appellant is that till February, 2014, the respondents were raising bill under Low Tension Tariff but suddenly from March, 2014 bill was raised under High Tension Tariff and the consumer number was also changed without following the due process of law for conversion as well as without execution of any agreement for supply of power. The appellant/petitioner approached the respondent to raise the bill as per L.T.I.S. tariff as there was no agreement executed under H.T. tariff. The respondent vide memo no.477 dated 5 th March, 2014 informed the appellant that during inspection the load of the premises was found to be 220 H.P. against the sanctioned load of 103 H.P. so the appellant was directed to take appropriate steps for conversion into H.T. agreement. The appellant questioned the manner of inspection in which according to the appellant, defective and broken machines lying within the campus of the factory were included for determination of load which was assessed to 220 H.P. instead of 103 H.P. It is also the appellant s case that the respondent no.3- Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, J.B.V.N.L., Jamtara informed the appellant that the tariff has been converted to H.T. tariff and served a legal notice on 21st December, 2015 to deposit Rs.7,59,035/- pointing out therein that otherwise certificate proceeding would be initiated against the appellant. This notice was issued without any proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. In reply to the legal notice, the appellant approached respondent no.4, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, J.B.V.N.L., Jamtara and requested for payment in installments as his electrical line was disconnected since February, 2015. As the request for payment in installment was not accepted then the appellant paid Rs.50,000/- on 26th May, 2016. The respondents admitted that the electrical connection of appellant is disconnected against dues of Rs.3,55,305/- Since the electrical line was disconnected due to unilateral conversion of L.T. tariff into H.T. tariff by the respondent, the appellant started using D.G. set and steam vapour engine for running the rice mill. The respondent lodged an F.I.R. on 27th January, 2017 against the appellant for theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.69,09,786/- as the rate charged under H.T. tariff. The appellant approached writ court for the following reliefs:- (a) Seeking restoration of its electricity connection. (b) Quashing of illegal assessment of Rs.69,09,786/- in Jamtara P.S. case no.13/2017. (c) For issuance of show cause upon the respondents as to how L.T.I.S. connection of the petitioner has been unilaterally converted into H.T. tariff without following the due procedure. (d) Directing the respondents to revise the bill from March, 2014 under the L.T.I.S. tariff. (e) For quashing the load inspection report dated 08.02.2014 where under it has been determined as 220 H.P. instead of 103 H.P. (f) For allowing the petitioner to use diesel generator set and steam power engine to run the rice mill till the electrical line of the petitioner is restored.
(3.) The writ court after hearing the parties disposed of with observation that:- 8. In such circumstances, at this stage, this Court is of the view that the respondents should serve upon the petitioner the assessment order and the supplementary bill within a period of two weeks in terms of Clause 11.9. 9. The consequence which follows in case of institution of an F.I.R. on allegation of theft of electricity, have been laid down in the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Shyamlal Iron and Steel Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board, 2013 3 JLJR 435. It is upto the petitioner to liquidate the liability arising out of such assessment or to wait for the outcome of the criminal case pending before the special court. ;