Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Maa Mundeswari Cycle Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 September, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12696 of 2014
======================================================
M/s Maa Mundeswari Cycle Udyog Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its place of
business at Urmila Villa, Surya Mandir Road, Aurangabad through one of
its Directors, Shyam Kishore Prasad, son of Late Deo Nandan Prasad,
Resident of at Urmila Villa, Surya Mandir Road, P.S. Town Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Energy,
Government of Bihar, 3rd Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Bihar, 3rd
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd., having its office at Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman cum Managing
Director.
4. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding)
Co. Ltd., having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, having its
office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing
Director.
6. The Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Company
Limited, having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Chief Engineer, (Commercial Cell) South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Gaya.
9. The Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal
For Respondent-Company : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Addl. SC
For the respondent-State : Mr. Prabhat Bharti, AC to GP-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
2 05-09-2014Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Holding Company') and Mr. Prabhat Bharti, learned Patna High Court CWJC No.12696 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2014 2 Assisting Counsel to Government Pleader No.23 for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal disconnection of his electricity supply by the respondents with effect from April, 2014.
The petitioner is a company incorporated under provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and had applied for a H.T. connection with the respondent- Holding Company under HTIS-II category for a contract demand of 1000 KVA. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 11.3.2013, a copy whereof is placed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner is also registered with the State Government in its Industries Department and is entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Policy, 2011 placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to Clause 2(vi) of the Industrial Policy, the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of the annual minimum guarantee charges/monthly minimum guarantee charge/maximum demand charge or any such charge being levied by the Holding Company in any other name under the Tariff order issued by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner commenced its Patna High Court CWJC No.12696 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2014 3 production with effect from 18.9.2013 and thus would be entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Policy until 17.9.2018. This fact would be very relevant for the issue raised in the present writ petition.
I have already mentioned hereinabove that the H.T. agreement was entered into between the parties on 11.3.2013 placed at Annexure-2, however, it took some time by the respondent-Holding Company to provide electricity connection to the petitioner and correspondences to that effect are present at Annexures 3 onwards when finally on 7.12.2013 a meter was installed at the business premises of the petitioner as is manifest from the meter installation report placed at Annexure-9.
Clause 1(b) of the H.T. agreement provides for levy of monthly minimum guarantee charges on the consumer only after expiry of three months of the commencement of the supply. However, that would not be relevant in so far as the present issue is concerned in view of the exemption granted to the petitioner under the Industrial Policy in Clause 2(vi) thereof. Despite such position existing, the first of the bill issued by the respondents on 3.1.2014 after commencement of supply and installation of meter on 7.12.2013 placed at Annexure-10 was to the tune of Rs.10,39,447/- and which not only included the Patna High Court CWJC No.12696 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2014 4 arrears of energy charges but also raised bills towards maximum demand charge as well as delayed payment surcharge. The charge towards current consumption has also been mentioned and which is to the tune of about 75,000/-. The petitioner raised his objections to the bill in the light of the Industrial Policy on 27.1.2014 but perhaps it was brushed aside because the next bill issued on 2.2.2014 was inclusive of the arrears of the previous bill and was for Rs.14,51,633/- . It is a matter of record that the respondent- Holding Company despite objections being raised by the petitioner continued to raise bills and which at present stands at over rupees 26 lacs as is manifest from Annexure-C series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- South Bihar Power Distribution Company.
Mr. Sanjay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that even when the authorities of the State Government and the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority have been regularly apprising the authorities of the Holding Company regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits arising from Industrial Policy but they have paid no heed and have continued to perpetuate the illegality by raising bills and which has resulted in the enormity of the bill. He submits that the petitioner is fully entitled to the Patna High Court CWJC No.12696 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2014 5 benefits of the Industrial Policy and whereunder he is not required to make any payment towards either monthly minimum guarantee charge/annual minimum guarantee charge or towards maximum demand charge. He thus submits that since by raising such illegal bill despite objection being raised by him which never was attended to, the payment could not be made and the line of the petitioner has ultimately been disconnected in April, 2014 even when the liability, according to the petitioner, is below 3.5 lacs. Mr. Sanjay has further submitted that the illegality in the action of the respondent can well be ascertained by the first bill itself which shows an energy arrears of over rupees 6 lacs even when the electrical connection was energized only on 7.12.2013 and the first of the bill was received by the petitioner on 3.1.2014.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Holding Company practically admitting the entitlement of the petitioner under the Industrial Policy as well as the exemptions granted thereunder. It has been fairly admitted that the bills issued by the respondents needs to be appropriately modified by affording the benefit under the Industrial Policy to the petitioner.
Mr. Ojha, learned Additional Standing Counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.12696 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2014 6 appearing on behalf of the respondent Holding Company has fairly admitted before this Court that the entitlement of the petitioner under the Industrial Policy stands confirmed from the State Government and thus the respondent-Company is in the process of issuing fresh bill to the petitioner after making appropriate corrections.
Taking into consideration that the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the present writ petition stands practically admitted by the respondents and the bills after its modification are yet to be issued, this Court is satisfied that the line of the petitioner needs to be restored.
In the circumstances discussed hereinabove and since according to the estimation of the petitioner himself, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 lacs, in the opinion of this Court, no sooner the petitioner deposits an amount of rupees four lacs towards his pending bills with the respondent no.9 (the Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad) or the appropriate authority concerned and produces a copy of the receipt thereof together with a copy of this order, the electrical connection of the petitioner should be restored within 48 hours by the respondent no.9, Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12696 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2014 7
It goes without saying that upon restoration of the electrical connection the petitioner shall be under duty to make payment of the current charge so raised failing which the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appropriate authorities of the respondent-Company to supply the bill for the period commencing energization of the electrical connection of the petitioner after appropriate modification taking into consideration the Industrial Policy, 2011 in accordance with law.
With the observations and directions aforementioned this writ petition is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U