The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the licensee to provide electricity through a prepayment meter if the consumer opts for it, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Electricity Supply Code Regulations.

This application has been filed for quashing the order/Judgment dated 13.9.2011, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand in Case No. EOJ/10/2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Ombudsman had directed the petitioner to deposit security amount for the financial year 2010-11 in 12 installments with interest. The petitioner further prayed for quashing the letter no. 4613, dated 3.11.2014 (Annexure-S.A.1), whereby a demand of Rs. 1,29,36,046/- was made by the respondents towards security deposit for the financial year 2012-13.

2. Admittedly, petitioner is a HTSS consumer, having a contract demand of 3600 KVA. It appears that earlier petitioner was availing electrical energy after depositing security amount as per the provision of Section 47 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). However, in terms of Section 47 (5) of the Act as well as Clause 10.1 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005, petitioner decided to opt for supply of the electricity on the basis of prepayment meter instead of depositing security amount as per Section 47 (1) of the Act. The aforesaid option given to the respondents vide letter dated 04.12.2010. It then appears that when the respondent had not given any heed to the aforesaid letter of the petitioner and they insisted upon the petitioner to deposit security amount for the financial year 2010-11, the petitioner filed an application before the “Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum” (hereinafter referred as 'Forum').

3. It appears that respondent had filed a counter affidavit in the 'Forum', wherein it was stated that prepayment meters are not available in the market. However, the consumers, who are keen to install it, should be given reasonable time i.e., of one month, to make available the prepayment meter to the respondent-Board. The said meter will be installed after proper testing and sealing by the Board, subject to the conditions that the consumer will have to make payment of all the dues outstanding against them till the date of removing of existing meter, either disputed or undisputed, after adjusting the security amount with interest thereupon. The respondents had admitted that the provision for supply through prepayment meter is made under Section 47 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as under the second proviso of Clause 10.1 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005. In spite of the aforesaid admission of the respondent, the 'Forum' concluded that at present it is not feasible for the respondent to install prepayment meter, accordingly, directed the petitioner to make payment of the security amount in 20 interest free equal monthly installments. Against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand vide Appeal No. EOJ/10/2011. It appears that the learned Ombudsman without disturbing the findings of the 'Forum' that the Board is not in a position to install prepayment meter as per the provisions of the Act and the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005, had directed the petitioner to deposit the security amount in 12 installments with interest. Against that order, the present writ application filed.

4. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent made another demand vide letter no. 4613, dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure-S.A.1), of Rs.1,29,36,046/- towards security amount for the financial year 2012-13. The said demand was also challenged in this case by filing an amendment petition vide Interlocutory Application No. 506 of 2015, and the said amendment allowed vide order dated 28.01.2015.

5. Sri D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 47 (5) of the Act, the respondents are not entitled to demand security amount in pursuance of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the Act, if the consumer prepared to take the supply through a prepayment meter. Accordingly, Sri Pathak submits that the aforesaid impugned demand mad