Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 352
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
G. C. Bharuka, J.
Hotel Vinit Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner.
Vs.
General Manager-Chief Engineer, Electricity Board, Bhagalpur & Others - Respondents
C.W.J.C. No: 5201 of 1987.
Decided On : 30.10.1990
For the Petitioner: Sri Krishna Mohan.
For the Respondent: Sri Shiva Kirti Singh.
Electricity bills should be raised based on the stipulated agreement with consumers and pending disputes will determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Headnote:
Electricity Charges - Low Tension Industrial Consumer - The court held that raising electricity bills on the basis of 30% load factor was not in conformity with the law and bills should be raised only on the basis of three months average as stipulated in the agreement with the consumers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a low tension industrial consumer, raised grievances regarding being subjected to electricity charges and subsequent billing based on a 30% load factor, which was found to be illegal and unenforceable for periods prior to 16.2.87.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bills raised against the petitioner for the period prior to 16.2.87 on the basis of 30% load factor are illegal and unenforceable. It also noted that disputes pending adjudication before the Electrical Inspector will determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of raising electricity bills based on a 30% load factor and the pending disputes regarding the correctness of the meter and consequential raising of bills.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the agreement entered into by the board with the consumers, which stipulated that bills should be raised only on the basis of three months average, and by the pending disputes adjudication before the Electrical Inspector.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
G.C. Bhoruka, J.
In this case the petitioner is a low tension industrial consumer. His grievances are that it has been subjected to electricity charges and subsequent billing on the basis of 30% load factor pursuant to a resolution dated 16.2.87. It has already been held by this Court in several reported and unreported cases that this mode of raising electricity bills is not in conformity with law and specially for the periods prior to 16.2.87. The bills can be raised only on the basis of three months average as stipulated under the agreement entered into by the board with the consumers. Therefore, so far as the bills raised against the petitioner for the period prior to 16.2.87 on the basis of 30% load factor are concerned, those have to be hold as illegal and unenforceable. I have been informed that for some subsequent period some dispute with regard to the correctness of the meter and consequential raising of bill is pending before the electrical inspector under section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It needs no clarification' that for the periods the disputes are pending adjudication before the Electrical Inspector, the right and liabilities of the parties will abide by the decision rendered in the said proceeding subject to appeal and further judicial pronouncements.
2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
