Patna High Court - Orders
The South Bihar Power Distribution ... vs The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ... on 25 June, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9351 of 2013
======================================================
1. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., through its
Managing Director having its Head Office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna-1.
2. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Bhagalpur.
3. The EEE Electric Supply Division, Bhagalpur (Urban).
4. The AEE (Rev.) Electric Supply Sub-Division, Bhagalpur.
5. The AEE Electric Supply Sub-Division, Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Vidyut Bhawan-II, Bailey
Road, Patna through its Chairman.
2. M/S Oswal Agro Food, through its Proprietor Rupesh Kumar Baidya,
R/O House No.-33/C, Patel Babu Road, Bhagalpur-1.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
3 25-06-2014Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. as well as the counsel for the respondent no.2 who has entered appearance through counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Singh.
The petitioner-distribution company is aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the respondent-Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Patna constituted under the provisions of section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the bill issued by the petitioners for the month of January, 2012 amounting to Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2013 (3) dt.25-06-2014 2 Rs.12,28,122/- under the HT tariff retrospectively with effect from October, 2010 has been held to be illegal and consequently the instalment agreement dated 25.4.2012 has also been terminated being based on illegal demand. By the same order the petitioner-distribution company has been directed to revise the bills under the LT tariff and issue fresh bill until the requisite formalities are completed for conversion of the electric supply of the respondent no.2 from LTIS tariff to HT tariff, for which a period of two months is granted.
It is not in dispute that despite the order having been passed by the Forum as back as on 17.9.2012 a period of more than one and half years has been lapsed but the conversion of the electric connection of respondent no.2 from LTIS category to H.T. category has not taken place. The reasons assigned are ridiculous and is attributed to the pendency of writ petitions on the issue, of which the present one has been filed by the distribution company itself while the other writ petition has been filed by respondent no.2 bearing CWJC No.5199 of 2013 complaining failure of the petitioners in carrying out the directives of the Consumer Forum.
This Court is in complete loss of understanding as to how the pendency of the writ petitions would be a reason for not Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2013 (3) dt.25-06-2014 3 converting the electricity supply of the respondent no.2 from LTIS category to HT category even when the requisite fee has been paid by the respondent no.2 and an agreement was executed as back as on 3.2.2012. In so far as the other writ petition preferred by the respondent no.2 is concerned, the same was filed requiring the petitioners to comply with the direction and thus could not have created any obstruction in the way of the petitioners to carry out the conversion.
Adverting to the issue involved in the present writ petition, it is seen that the bill raised by the petitioners under HT category was set aside by the statutory body created under 'the Act' on grounds that despite the requisite formality having been completed by the respondent no.2 for the conversion, the petitioners had not taken any steps for conversion of the category of the respondent no.2 to HT category and instead of discharging their obligations to convert the electric connection of the respondent no.2 to HT category they had taken a short-cut to raise an electricity energy bill by treating the respondent no.2 under the HT category on his admission that his load had been increased to 110 HP under HT category with effect 20.10.2010.
The circumstances discussed while demonstrating the bona-fides of the respondent no.2 also reflects complete Patna High Court CWJC No.9351 of 2013 (3) dt.25-06-2014 4 abdication of statutory obligation by the petitioners who without converting the category of the respondent no.2 to HT has proceeded to raise the bill on deeming fiction and which has been rightly interfered with by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum after examining the matter. The order passed by the Forum is in accordance with law warranting no interference.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U T