IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15699 of 2007 HIMSHILA COLD STORAGE Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER: M/S. TEJ BAHADUR SINGH, AJAY KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT BOARD: MR. SUBHASH KISHORE VERMA. ------- 07. 25/07/2008 Petitioner, a Cold Storage firm, is seeking a direction upon the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board to make correction in the electricity bill raised upon them which is to the tune of Rs.17, 19,534. He wants respondents to remove the charges which have been raised for the period 26.11.2002 till 3.12.2003 on the ground that on a request made, electric supply to the Cold storage was disconnected by the respondents for the said period. Contention of the petitioner is that the Cold Storage in question needed some extensive capital repair. Petitioner, therefore, decided to get the electric connection officially disconnected so that the repairs required could be completed without incurring additional liability for electric connection which was not required during capital repair. In support of the above fact petitioner has brought on record Annexure-12 dated 26.11.2002 which is the work order showing that the electric supply to the cold storage was officially disconnected and this fact reported to the concerned authority. The work order with endorsement has been signed by high tension line man as would be evident from a perusal of the same. It is the case of the petitioner that when the repair work of the cold storage was completed, petitioner - 2 - requested for restoration of the electric connection which was done on 3.12.2003. Petitioner was surprised to receive a bill from the respondents which on due examination was found to contain charges even for the period when officially the electric supply to the cold storage was disconnected. Petitioner thereafter approached various authorities for removing the anomaly in the so-called power due which was shown against them in this regard. He even volunteered to pay 25 per cent of the dues straightway for restoration of electric supply. The authorities did agree to restore the electric connection on the condition that the balance amount should be paid in 19 (nineteen) equal instalments. It is not in dispute that petitioner thereafter has made payments of various instalments which according to him is more than 10 lacs of rupees. The dispute thereafter remained only for the period in question. Petitioner asserted his right not to pay for the charges between 26.11.2002 and 3.12.2003. When nothing came to be done even at the level of Chairman of the respondent Electricity Board, he filed the present writ application. Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to his application dated 18.11.2002 contained in annexure-2, addressed to the Executive Engineer for disconnection of the electric supply. A direction was also issued on 19.11.2002 to do the needful which is evident from the endorsement. One Narsing Mehta was directed to carry out the orders and it is same Narsing Mehra who has reported compliance of disconnection from 26.11.2002 which is evident from - 3 - perusal of annexure-12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therefore prays that these documents does point out to the fact that disconnection was effected against the petitioner and there ought not to be any doubt on the same. Respondents were thereafter directed to file their counter affidavit and explain the position. A counter affidavit was filed on 16.1.2008. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the bill raised on the petitioner is based on the accounts available with the respondents. They further take a plea that the electric connection was disconnected on 31.122003 and not on 26.11.2002. The Court did not find the counter affidavit dated 16.1.2008 satisfactory because bald denial is no denial in the eyes of law. The Court therefore decided to give yet another opportunity to respondents to verify the facts and file a supplementary counter affidavit. But in the supplementary counter affidavit also they only assert that the actually disconnection was made on 3.12.2003 even though the application made by the petitioner is not denied. They tried to explain annexure-12 by saying that it was not a compliance report but a work order for carrying out certain repairs. But two things are quite glaring which emerges from the perusal of the evidence on record and the assertion made by the respondents. One that they have not brought any evidence to show that disconnection was effected on 3.12.2003 which could be a evidence to support their stand and secondly, contents of annexures 2 and 12 are not being satisfactorily explained. Mere denying and brushing it aside - 4 - does not help the respondents in the matter. Merely because certain officials of the respondents maintaining the records have not carried their responsibilities properly may be by over-sight or a communication gap, then the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for liability which is not his. The details of the accounts also show that the respondents have resorted to average billing in the background that the meter did not show any consumption for the period, which by itself is a circumstance in addition to the evidence and the assertion made by the petitioner about disconnection. The Court therefore reaches a conclusion that the respondents despite being given opportunity have not been able to substantiate their claim for raising a bill for the period 26.11.2002 till 3.12.2003. In view of the above, respondents are directed to make the necessary correction with regard to the electric dues raised on the petitioner to the tune of Rs.17,19,534/- by excluding the charges for the period 26.11.2002 to 3.12.2003. The demand therefore of the above amount is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to issue a fresh demand after deducting the charges from 26.11.2002 to 3.12.2003. The fresh bills will take into account the various payments which the petitioner has already made to the respondents during the pendency of the dispute. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) - 5 -