IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12056 of 2011 M/S Sona Auto Agriculture Pvt.Ltd. 2nd Floor, Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna Through Its Authorized Signatory, Raj Kumar Sandhu S/O Sri Prem Chand, R.O 107, A-2, Nutan Tower, Kankarbagh, P.S. - Kankarbagh, Distt. - Patna Versus 1. The Bihar State Elelctricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Through Its Chairman 2. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Supply), Electricity Supply Sub Division, Fatuha, Distt. - Patna 3. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Supply), Electricity Supply Sub Division, Fatuha, Distt. - Patna ---------------------------------- 4 21.10.2011. The petitioner is an incorporated company having its registered office at New Delhi. One of its workshops is situated at Fatuha Industrial Area, Fatuha. The petitioner was sanctioned 30 HP load connection on 13.3.2008. On 29.4.2010 he applied for enhancement of load to 100 KVA supply per month under category HTS 1 which in effect would be a conversion from LTS II category to HTS I. The petitioner submits that he fulfilled all the required formalities. He also deposited required security of Rs. 2,08,708/- on 19.8.2010, for which necessary receipt was granted. He paid Rs. 39,464/- against the transformer installation cum supervision charges against receipt dated 16.9.2010. 2 Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents in stead of executing an agreement regarding enhancement of load, conducted an inspection of factory on 7.4.2011 and raised a punitive bill of Rs. 2,03,149/- on 9.4.2011. On 16.4.2011, the petitioner filed his objection against the assessment. He submits that many charges including energy charge were calculated on punitive scale which is not permissible, in view of Sub-clause 7.8.V of Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had applied for change of category which was sanctioned too. He fulfilled all the requirements mentioned in the sanctioned letter and only agreement was required to be done. Thus he submits that in view of Sub-clause 7.8.V of the Code, respondents ought not to have raised punitive bill. He submits that the clause saves the consumer from being charged punitively in such circumstances. Mr Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that till the agreement was executed, the petitioner was not duly authorized to draw energy till agreement was executed under enhanced load. He further submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy. 3 In my view, the petitioner should take resort to alternative remedy of appeal. The delay in filing the appeal, if any, would be condoned. The petitioner would be required to deposit 40% of the billed amount. As the petitioner has completed all the formalities for load enhancement, respondents would consider executing the agreement for enhancing the load capacity to 100 KVA from LTS II category to HTS I. Respondents would not disconnect the line of the petitioner’s premises. The writ petition stands disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)