Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Agarwala Agro Rice Mills Private Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A. No. 26868 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Electricity Dispute - Electricity Act, 2003 - [CT Ratio, Multiplying Factor, Outstanding Dues] - The court discussed the CT ratio change, double multiplying factor, and outstanding dues claimed by the WBSEDCL. It highlighted the legal principles of mistake or bona fide error justifying supplementary bill, and the relevance of prospective loss in belated billing. The court upheld the Ombudsman's decision, dismissing the petitioners' challenge and allowing payment of outstanding dues in instalments without late payment surcharge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a rice mill company and its director, disputed outstanding electricity dues claimed by the WBSEDCL due to alleged CT ratio change and double multiplying factor. They argued that the claims were inflated and illegal, and the Ombudsman did not consider their submissions. The WBSEDCL contended that the error in calculation was bona fide and the petitioners were aware of the CT change.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the WBSEDCL's mistake in applying the correct multiplying factor was bona fide and justified the supplementary bill. It upheld the Ombudsman's decision, dismissing the petitioners' challenge and allowing payment of outstanding dues in instalments without late payment surcharge.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the outstanding electricity dues claimed by the WBSEDCL, the petitioners' alleged ignorance of the CT change, and the relevance of prospective loss in belated billing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that a mistake or bona fide error can justify a supplementary bill, and the prospective loss to be suffered due to belated billing is not a relevant factor. It upheld the Ombudsman's decision based on the evidence and reasoning.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' challenge, allowing payment of outstanding dues in instalments without late payment surcharge, and restrained the WBSEDCL from disconnecting the electricity supply unconditionally up to a specified date, conditional on the petitioners' continued payment of dues in instalments and current electricity charges.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner no. 1- company (previously M/s Sunita Rice Mills, a unit of Delta Merchandise Private Limited, now Agarwala Agro Rice Mills Private Limited) runs a rice mill and the petitioner no. 2 is one of its directors. The petitioner no. 1 has been enjoying electricity supply from the respondent no. 1-WBSEDCL (West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited) for running the mill from the month of February, 2016. The petitioner no. 1 has been paying the current electricity charges regularly on the basis of bills raised by the WBSEDCL.
2. On January 28, 2019, the WBSEDCL issued a Memo to the petitioner no. 1 intimating that during a visit to the petitioners' premises on January 25, 2019 it was observed that the installed CT ratio should be 100/5 Amp instead of 50/5 Amp, which was not updated inadvertently from November, 2017, as a consequence of which the net multiplying factor (MF) had been reduced to 1000 instead of 2000.
3. Accordingly, on February 18, 2019 a bill was raised for the billing cycle January, 2019, including the allegedly outstanding amount of Rs. 2,00,88, 271.77 p (Rupees Two Crore Eighty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy One and Seventy-Seven Paise Only) as less claim for the period November, 2017 to December, 2018.
4. The petitioners issued a letter on February 28, 2019 disputing the claim of outstanding dues. However, the current electricity charges for January, 2019 were paid.
5. Again, the bill dated March 3, 2019 for the month of February, 2019 included the outstanding dues. The petitioners then lodged a complaint on March 15, 2019 before the respondent no. 6, the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer, Murshidabad Region.
6. A Memo dated March 9, 2019 followed from the end of WBSEDCL, reiterating the claim of outstanding dues. On March 16, 2019, a disconnection notice under Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the 2003 Act') was served on the petitioners.
7. The alleged outstanding amount continued to be shown on the subsequent current bills. The petitioners have been paying all current charges, without the alleged outstanding dues.
8. The RGRO passed a Draft Settlement Order (DSO) on April 2019, opining that the claim of the WBSEDCL was justified but if the petitioners applied for instalments the respondent-authorities should consider the same by allowing a maximum of 14 instalments without charging LPSC (Late Payment Surcharge). The petitioners filed an exception to the DSO on April 15, 2019.
9. A further disconnection notice was issued on April 16, 2019 by the WBSEDCL, upon which the petitioners filed a writ petition, giving rise to WP No. 8989(W) of 2019.
10. On May 10, 2019 the petitioners received the final order of the RGRO, directing the petitioners to pay the outstanding dues within 15 days from the order.
11. WP 8989(W) of 2019 was disposed of on May 17, 2019 by directing the Ombudsman, West Bengal (respondent no. 7) to hear the petitioners' grievance upon the petitioners paying a further amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakh Only) within seven days therefrom.
12. Accordingly on May 17, 2019 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Ombudsman against the order dated May 10, 2019 of the WBSEDCL. The Ombudsman passed a DSO on July 8, 2019 holding that the petitioners are to pay the entire outstanding amount in instalments as directed therein. The final order virtually reiterated the DSO.
13. On August 24, 2019, another disconnection notice was issued to the petitioners, alleging dues of Rs. 1,68,27,488/-, since certain payments had been made in the meantime by virtue of different orders.
14. The petitioners filed another writ petition, giving rise to AST 28 of 2019 which was decided on September 4, 2019, setting aside the final order of the Ombudsman dated July 30, 2019 and directing rehearing of the dispute upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The petitioners were to deposit Rs. 40 Lakh with the WBSEDCL. Such amount was deposite
A mistake or bona fide error can justify a supplementary bill, and the prospective loss to be suffered due to belated billing is not a relevant factor.
Electricity distribution companies must follow the procedures prescribed by the WBERC Regulations and the Electricity Act, 2003, when alleging that a consumer's electricity meter is defective and whe....
The main legal point established is the application of the multiplying factor in electricity billing and the interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
The error in applying the multiplying factor did not absolve the petitioner from paying the charges, and the respondents were entitled to raise the supplementary demand.
The Electricity Board must refer disputes regarding defective meters to the Electrical Inspector before raising supplementary bills, as mandated by S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Supplementary bills can be raised for mistakes, but disconnection for non-payment after two years is prohibited under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
