IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11958 of 2008 M/S SHIVA POLY TUBES PVT.LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 307, NARAYAN PLAZA, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA, THROGUH ITS DIRECTOR, RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA, S/O LATE SRI RAM GUPTA, RESIDENT OF 502, SANTOSHA COMPLEX, BANDAR BAGICHA, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN & DISTRICT PATNA…PETITIONER VERSUS 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, CENTRAL AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINENER (COMMERCIAL), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDHYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, FATUHA 4. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, DEEDARGANJ, PATNA………………………………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s S.D. Sanjay, Gautam Kejriwal and A. Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 04.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure-6) as well as bill dated 20.07.2008 (Annexure-6/A) which included penal bill and additional security for additional load. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a consumer of Bihar Electricity Board bearing Consumer No.FD-2310 and had a sanctioned load of 25 HP. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he had paid the entire bill of the electricity on 25.06.2008 as per the bill provided by the Board on - 2 - 16.06.2008 (Annexure-3). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an advertisement was issued by the Board in June 2008 in which it was stated that during survey drive it had been found that several consumers were using electricity in excess of the sanctioned load and hence for such consumers an opportunity was given to apply suo motu before the authorities for enhancement of load by 5th July 2008 otherwise if any consumer is caught consuming electricity more than the sanctioned load, legal action shall be taken against him and penal bill will be charged. A copy of this advertisement has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that in response to the said advertisement he filed an application dated 28.06.2008 (Annexure-2) stating that the sanctioned load of electricity for consumption was 25 HP and he wanted to get it enhanced to 50 HP. Thereafter on the direction of the Board, the petitioner also deposited fees for the said purpose on 04.07.2008 (Anneure-5). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further avers that during the pendency of his application Special Task Force of the Electricity Board came to the petitioner’s premises on 30.06.2008 (Annexure-4) and inspected the meter and found the connected load to be 41 HP, but the petitioner was under the impression that the said inspection was done on the basis of his application dated 28.06.2008 (Annexure-2). However, all of a sudden the petitioner received letter dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure-6) and bill dated 20.07.2008 (Annexure-6/A) directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2 lac - 3 - and odd as penal bill as well as additional security for additional load. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that he had no objection with regard to the additional security for additional load and hence he paid the said amount and the petitioner has also entered into an agreement with respect thereto but due to the advertisement issued by the Board and the application filed in time by the petitioner, the petitioner was not liable to pay any penal bill as per Annexure-6/A. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had filed an application dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure-A) asking the Electrical Executive Engineer, Supply Division, Fatuha to enhance the load of petitioner’s consumption from 41 HP to 50 HP. He further states that the Special Task Force was not sent in view of the application of the petitioner, rather it is an independent authority to check the extension of the load and hence the bill calculated on the basis of the report of Special Task Force has to be paid by the petitioner. 7. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner’s application dated 28.06.2008 (Anneuxre-2) was well within the time allowed by the respondent Board in its advertisement of June 2008 (Annexure-1) and even the fees for the said application was filed on 04.07.2008 (Anneuxre-5) which was well within the time granted by the said advertisement(Annexure-1). From reading of the said advertisement which was admittedly issued - 4 - by the Board, it is quite apparent that an opportunity was given to such consumers whose use of electricity was in excess to the load sanctioned by the Board and hence the respondents were not justified in charging the bill for consumption of excess load i.e. 41 HP, which was well within the prayer of the petitioner for enhancement of load to 50 HP. 8. Furthermore the letter relied upon by the respondents dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure-A) sent by the petitioner to the Electrical Executive Engineer (Supply Division), Fatuha is concerned, it is much subsequent letter which had no implication either on the advertisement or on the original application of the petitioner or to the impugned bill which were of much earlier dates. In the said circumstances, the respondents Board and its authorities cannot be allowed to go behind their own advertisement and take coercive action against the petitioner, as he had fully complied according to the advertisement of the Board. 9. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and penal bill dated 20.07.2008 (Annexure-6/A) issued by the Board is hereby quashed. However, the amount claimed by the Board by the said impugned bill, deposited by the petitioner under protest to avoid disconnection may be adjusted to the future bills of the petitioner. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)