Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NILU AGRAWAL, J.
MEHROTRA ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Vs.
NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 12174 of 2018
Decided On : 10-10-2018
Suraj Samdarshi, Adv., Sanjay Kumar Giri, Adv., Binod Kr. Singh, Adv., Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Adv., Pratyush Pratap Singh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the petitioner's right to seek revision of electricity bills due to discrepancies in billing and non-adherence to previous payment schedules, and the court's authority to direct the Franchisee to recalculate arrears, provide exemptions, and issue a revised bill.
Headnote:
Electricity Act - Restoration of Electric Supply - Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which pertains to restoration of electric supply and the obligations of the respondent authorities. The court also referred to the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007, particularly clauses related to billing, arrears, and disconnection and restoration of electricity supply.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, sought restoration of electric supply and revision of energy bills after non-payment of charges. The court had previously directed the petitioner to deposit certain amounts and adhere to a schedule of payment, which the petitioner failed to do. The petitioner approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the court for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the calculation and billing by the respondent Franchisee, leading to an inflated bill and improper adjustment of dues. The court directed the Franchisee to recalculate the arrears, give exemptions, and provide a revised bill. The court also outlined a payment schedule for the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved non-adherence to a payment schedule, discrepancies in billing and adjustment of dues, and the petitioner's right to seek relief from the court despite approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's request for revision of electricity bills was justified due to discrepancies in billing and non-adherence to previous payment schedules. The court directed the Franchisee to recalculate arrears, provide exemptions, and issue a revised bill. The court also outlined a payment schedule for the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ application by directing the Franchisee to recalculate arrears, provide exemptions, and issue a revised bill. The court also outlined a payment schedule for the petitioner, emphasizing that default in payment would grant the Franchisee the right to disconnect the electricity supply.
Nilu Agrawal, J.
Petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for the following reliefs :
(i) For a direction to the respondent authorities and in particular respondent no. 4 and 5, to restore the electric supply of the petitioner which has been disconnected despite an interim protection granted by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Muzaffarpur under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(ii) For a direction to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to ensure that the Distribution Franchise should abide by the orders which are being passed under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and upon their failure to do so, compensate the petitioner for the period of disconnection.
(iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to revise the energy bill of the petitioner and grant installment facility, so that the petitioner can make payment of the outstanding amount; and for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled.
2. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company through one of its Director Sunil Mehrotra, is primarily engaged in supply of fabricated materials to the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (in short SBPDCL) and North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (in short NBPDCL). The petitioner is a high tension consumer having a contract demand of 270 KVA under HTS-1 category bearing Consumer ID No. 0300000217. Earlier the electric supply of the petitioner was disconnected since 16.01.2016 for non-payment of energy charges to the tune of Rs. 1117993=00 as it stood on 10.09.2016, against which the petitioner had moved this Court in CWJC No. 16600 of 2016 claiming interest on security deposit of Rs. 5,83,002=00 deposited on 16.09.2009 and exemption from payment of electricity duty under Industrial Incentive Policy of 2006 and 2011 as well as restoration of electric connection. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2016, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16600 of 2016 directed the Managing Director, NBPDCL to dispose of the claim of interest on security deposit and exemption of electricity duty under Industrial Incentive Policy of 2006 and 2011 within a period of six weeks. So far as restoration of electricity connection, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.4 lakhs by 31st December, 2016 and on such deposit the electricity connection would be restored within 48 hours and the petitioner would accompany the said demand with an undertaking before the Franchisee regarding the schedule of payment. The petitioner was also directed to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs by 31st January, 2017 along with current charges as it existed on the date of order dated 15.12.2016 which would be deposited within the time stipulated in the bills. This Court fixed equal installments of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by 15th of each month with effect from February, 2017 until the clearance of entire balance arrears. This Court further observed that if there was default in payment of either the instalments or the current bills the Franchisee would be at liberty to disconnect the electricity supply.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adhere to the said schedule of payment as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. However, the petitioner approached the respondent Franchisee (respondent nos. 4 to 6) on 30.12.2017 vide Annexure2 and deposited Rs. 4 lakhs on 01.01.2018 after which the electricity connection was restored by the respondent, Franchisee. In the meantime, the petitioner's claim for interest on security deposit and exemption for electricity duty had been disposed of by the respondent no. 1 on 02.02.2018 by which it was observed that Rs. 1,97,635=08 had already been adjusted in financial year 2009-10 to 2015-16 and a sum of Rs. 36051=18 was proposed to be adjusted for the financial year 2016-17 by the Franchise in the next energy bill of the consumer which related to interest on security deposit. So far as exemption against electricity duty under the Industrial Incentive Policy of 2006 and
