The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair procedure and independent observations in imposing charges by regulatory bodies, and the arbitrariness of selective withdrawal of charges.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. Issue Rule. With consent of counsel for the parties, the matter was heard for disposal.

2. The writ petitioner claims direction for quashing of an order dated 28.5.2001; that was issued by the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (hereafter "DVB") which was succeeded to by the BSES Rajdhani Power Limited.

3. By the order, the misuse charges and surcharge, towards use of electricity claimed from the petitioner had been withdrawn w.e.f. 16.2.2001 and the petitioner was required to pay the amounts on account of such allegations from 2.2.1999 to 15.2.2001.

4. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was occupier of agricultural property in village Bijwasan. He claims a part of the property was used for domestic purposes and the remaining, for purely agricultural purposes. Reliance has been placed upon revenue records and Khasra/Girdawari for the period 1994-1995 to 2000-2001.

Two electricity connections were granted; one domestic, and the other, for agricultural purposes. It is claimed that from July 1999 onwards, the petitioner started receiving inflated bills which claimed that the premises were being misused. He wrote to the respondent and met with its officers from time to time. Letters dated 14th May, 2000, 11th August, 2000, 12th December, 2000 and 16th February, 2001 have been relied upon.

5. The petitioner had also approached the Ministry of Power, Central Government which wrote to the erstwhile DVB on 20.2.2001 requiring it to take action. Consequently, the impugned letter was issued withdrawing the misuse charges w.e.f. 16.2.2001 but confirming it for the period 2.2.1999 till 15.2.2001.

6. It is submitted that the impugned demand is completely without authority of law and not based on any objective facts. The allegations of misuse were decided. The petitioner was not notified about any alleged misuse nor was the determination of such misuse, arrived at after following any fair procedure, much less reasonable opportunity or notice in that regard.

7. The position of the DVB in its counter affidavit and also during the course of hearing, by its senior counsel Mr. Jayant Nath is that as per information received from the Local Revenue Authorities, namely, the Block Development Officer(BDO), several premises were found to be misused for non-agricultural purposes. He relied upon copy of the list along with a survey report, of the BDO forwarded to the DVB. It was submitted that pursuant to the said report dated 2.8.1999, the petitioner was notified that misuse charges and higher tariffs would be made effective from 2.2.1999.

8. Learned Counsel submitted that even though a notice was issued on 6.8.1999, there was no response from the petitioner and consequently the charges for miscue were billed and the petitioner was duty bound to pay the same.

9. The factual narrative shows that the DVB appears to have acted on the basis of an inspection said to have been conducted by the Block Development Officer. Although the show cause notice dated 6.8.1999 mentions the inspection by the Block Development Officer, nevertheless the affidavit filed in these proceedings records that the DVB inspected the premises on 2.8.1999. A careful reading of the list furnished by the Block Development Officer shows that the inspection was indeed carried out by the BDO. This establishes that the petitioners premises were never independently inspected by the DVB. The notice dated 6.8.1999 does not call upon the petitioner to answer to any allegation; it is a mere intimation that 50% misuse charges would be levied with retrospective effect from 2.2.1999 for an indefinite period till the petitioner proved that she was not indulging in misuse.

10. The materials on record unequivocally point out that the petitioner was protesting for nearly two years that her premises were never misused as alleged by the respondent. The respondent did not pay any heed to her entreaties till February 2001. It appears that the premises were inspected subsequen