The Electrical Inspector's jurisdiction is limited to disputes and differences arising under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the rules framed thereunder.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This writ application is directed against an order dated 6-2-1991 passed by the Electrical Inspector, Bihar as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the said authority being of the opinion that the maximum demand of the petitioners should be reduced from 183 KVA, directed that the petitioners would make necessary arrangements for raising further bills in accordance with the existing tariff.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is a statutory body constituted under Sec. 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and is a body corporate in terras of Sec. 12 thereof. The respondent No. 3 is also a statutory body having been constituted and incorporated under Bihar Fruits and Vegetables Development Corporation Act.

4. The respondent No. 3 Corporation entered into an agreement with the petitioner No. 1 for taking supply of high tension electrical energy at a contract demand of 183 KVA on or about 25th February, 1985 which is contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and 4.

5. According to the petitioners, the installed capacity at the premises of the respondent No. 3 corporation was found to be 194 KVA upon an inspection having been made by the petitioner No. 3. The report in relation thereto is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application.

6. The respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 11-9-1986 to the petitioners requesting them to reduce the contract demand from 183 KVA to 150 KVA.

7. It has been contended by the petitioners that the request made by the respondent No. 3 was rejected by the petitioner No. 2. According to the petitioners, as the minimum period during which an agreement for supply of High Tension electrical energy remains operative for a period of three years, the request made by the petitioners was not and could not have been entertained.

8. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it has further been stated that the highest demand of the respondent No. 3 in different years were found to be as follows:

Year Highest K. V. A. recorded in a month

1958-86 149 K. V. A.

1986-87 173 K. V. A.

1987-88 116 K.V.A.

1988-89 116 K.V.A.

1989-90 77 K. V. A.

1990-91 179 K. V. A.

9 The respondent No. 3, however, referred the matter relating to reduction of connected load to the respondent No. 2. The petitioners having been noticed by the respondent No. 2, filed its written statement which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application.

10. By reason of the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to raise the bills in respect of consumption of electrical energy by the respondent No, 3 on the basis of 130 KVA.

11. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in their counter-affidavit, have disputed the correctness of the report of the petitioner No. 3 (Annexure-2). It has also been stated that its maximum demand in any year never exceeded 75 KVA.

12. According to the respondent, it submitted representation on 20th February, 1989 along with actual consumption report charts from the January, 1987 to September, 1989 before the Superintending Engineer which are contained in Annexure D, D/1, D/2 and D/3 respectively. The respondents have further contended that upon receipt of the aforementioned representation, the Superintending Engineer by an office Memo dated 6-4-1989 directed the petitioner No. 3 to submit a specific report regarding the maximum drawal of the units in different financial years by the respondent No. 3 together with his comments thereon. However, the petitioner No. 3 submitted a report dated 1-5-1989 regarding transformer only installed by the petitioners but did not make any comments with regard to the issues raised by it in its representation dated 20-2-1989.

13. It has further been contended th