IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2057 of 2004
Sartaj Hotel, Main Road, Ranchi Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman
2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Kusai Colony, Ranchi
Electricity Board, Ranchi
3. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi Electrical Circle, Ranchi Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S. Mittal, N.K. Pasari and S.K. Deo, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, SC, JSEB
---
3. 06.01.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that the
respondents have raised the impugned Bill without complying with the provisions of
section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in as much as, no prior notice as required under
section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was served upon him, nor any provisional Bill
was raised against the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the amount should
not be realized from him.
3. It appears from the pleadings in the writ application that the petitioner’s premises
was inspected by the concerned authorities of the respondents on 20.1.2004. A report of
inspection was prepared in which the findings were recorded to suggest that instead of 45
KW, the petitioner has been found consuming more than 60 KW. Accordingly, a demand
notice for payment of a sum of Rs. 70,308/- on the purported basis of 66 KW was raised
and a notice was issued to the petitioner accordingly, directing him to deposit the
amount, failing which electric connection to his premises would be withdrawn.
4. Shri M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that as per the
provisions of section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if upon inspection, the concerned
officer is of the opinion that any unauthorized use of electricity has been made, then he is
required to make provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by the
consumer and the same shall have to be served upon the consumer to enable him to file
his objection to the provisional assessment, but no such compliance has been made.
Learned counsel explains that the notice dated 30.1.2004 issued to the petitioner, cannot
be deemed to be compliance of the provisions of law as because, the same is a direct
demand calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount stated therein and it cannot be
deemed to be a provisional assessment. Furthermore, the purported notice does not
indicate that any opportunity has been given to the petitioner to file his objection to the
demand made.
Learned counsel adds further that subsequent to the date of inspection made by
the concerned authorities of the respondents and on being convinced that the inspection
report is totally perverse and misconceived, the petitioner had called upon the concerned
authorities of the respondents to conduct a fresh inspection and, on their failure to
respond, the petitioner had got the inspection done by an authorized private agency
namely, the Electrical Engineer and Government Contractor and their report
(Annexure-7) would confirm that the actual load utilized by the petitioner was only 22
KW. Learned counsel argues that had the petitioner been given an opportunity to file his
objection and to explain the matter, the demand, as indicated in the notice, would not
have been raised.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board, on the other hand, would
contend that the notice dated 30.1.2004 (Annexure-10) is in fact, in compliance with the
requirement of the provisions under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
furthermore, the inspection at the petitioner’s premises was carried out in presence of the
petitioner’s representative and no objection at the relevant time was raised by the
representative.
6. Be that as it may, from the rival submissions and from the pleadings, I am
satisfied that before raising the demand for payment of Rs. 70,308/-, as per the impugned
Bill, notice as required under the provisions of section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003
has not been issued and neither has any provisional Bill been raised and served upon the
petitioner calling upon him to submit his objection, if any, within a stipulated period.
7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned Bill (Annexure-3)
is quashed. Respondents are directed to issue a fresh notice in terms of requirement as
contained in section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and give a reasonable opportunity to
the petitioner to submit his objection and thereafter, prepare the final Bill and serve upon
the petitioner accordingly. This exercise must be carried out within two months from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The petitioner, in his objection, may
raise all such grounds as raised in the present writ application as well as other grounds
and may also claim refund of the 50% deposit made by him which the respondents shall
consider and dispose of in accordance with law.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent Electricity
Board.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/