CARBON AND GRAPHITE PRODUCTS RANCHI Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a consumer of the Bihar State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1, prayed for quashing Annexure 11, letter dated 16-7-1985 by which the petitioner was informed that in view of the fact that respondent No. 2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner, the amount which was kept in abeyance together with interest, i. e. Rs. 3,18,171.44 up to May, 198) was payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was further informed that if that amount was not paid within serven days from the date of issue of the letter, the electric line would be disconnected. The order of respondent No. 2 for keeping the dues of the petitioner in abeyance which has been referred in Annexure 11 is contained in letter dated 21-11-1893 which is part of Annexure 2.

(2.) The petitioner is a consumer of the Board. In the business permises of the petitioner electroplator of various sizes ranging from 5 H P. to 25 H. P. are fitted and therefore, two part tariff meter with graduation O KVA to 95 KVA with multiplication factor has been installed. The meters have the capacity to read the maximum of 190 KVA only. la the meter KWH and K.VAH readings are shown separately and these two readings are used to evaluate the energy consumption and power factor for all practical purposes being taken as O. 80 which cannot be more than 1 in any case Since the year 1979, the meter started recording consumption of more than 190 KVA and the power factor also recorded more than 1, the petitioner several times brought the matter to the notice of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the irregular and irratic reading of meter or the wrong recording of the meter reading indicated that either the meter had gone defective or the meter reader had deliberately recorded a wrong reading. On scrutiny it was found that the meter was correct and, therefore, the meter reading was incorrect resulting in excessive billing by the Board. The petitioner filed representation on 22nd October, 1983 for the periods 1978-79 to 1981-82 to respondent No. 3 for considering the case and settling its claim. The representation so filed is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 forwarded the representation with his comment to respondent No. 2. The comment of Respondent No. 3 is contained in Annexure-3. Respondent No. 2 in his turn be letter dated 22-11-1983 ordered respondent No. 3 to inspect the factory premises of the petitioner and submit his report giving all the technical details. Respondent No. 2 further ordered that meanwhile the dues of the petitioner would be kept in abeyance and electric line be restored. Respondent No. 3 in his turn sent a copy of the letter to respondent No. 4 for compliance with regard to the last part of the order of respondent No. 2. The order of respondent No. 2 given to respondent No. 3 is part of Annexure 2. The Superintending Engineer inspected the factory permises of the petitioner and submitted his report to respondent No. 2 which is Annexure 3/A to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 opined that due to the wrong taking of reading of KVAH, the consumer had to pay penalty of low-power factor. He recommended that necessary order be passed to regularise the billing of the consumer by adjusting the excessive billing on account of lower power factor. Respondent No. 4 by Annexure 8, dated 3-12-1984 also informed respondent No. 3 that because of the wrong meter reading by the Assistant Electrical Engineer (respondent No. 5) the situation could have arisen. He further informed respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 5 was being asked to file his show cause. Thereafter Annexure 11 was issued by respondent No. 6 by which the petitioner was i nformed that respondent No. 2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by respondent No. 6. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on a representation filed by the petitioner on 28-4-1980 with regard to the bill for the month of March, 1980, the meter was examined and it was decided that as there could be some mistake in taking the reading a sum of Rupees thirteen thousand and odd was adjusted with the bill October, 1980. Further representation filed by the petitioner on the ground of excessive billing was examined by the respondents and it was informed that no excess billing was done. By Annexure B the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2,18,261. 31, the amount outstanding up to August, 1983. In spite of the fact that the earlier representation of the petitioner had been disposed of the petitioner again raised dispute for the period 1978-79 to 1981-82. Respondent No. 2 applied his mind to the facts of the case and on the basis of the report of respondent No. 3 and analytical notes of the Deputy Director of Accounts, held that no relief was admissible to the petitiouer.