IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17985 of 2009 M/S MAHALAXMI POLYPET PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GURU GOVIND SINGH PATH, P.O. & P.S.- CHOUK, PATNA CITY, DISTT.- PATNA, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MADAN MOHAN BOOBNA, SON OF LATE VISHWANATH PRASAD BOOBNA, R/O NEW ROAD, CHOUK, P.O. & P.S. - CHOUK, PATNA CITY, DISTT.- PATNA VERSUS 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER (REVENUE) BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER CENTRAL AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA 4. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PATNA ELECTRIC CIRCLE, R- BLOCK, PATNA 5. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, FATUHA DIVISION, FATUHA, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Adv For the Board : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv. ----------- 02 13.01.2010 By this writ application the petitioner, inter alia, raises several grievances which is, according to him ultimately laid to wrongful disconnection of his electric connection. His first grievance is that petitioner’s unit being a new unit, as per the Industrial Policy-2006, he was entitled to various incentives in respect of electricity consumed by him from the Board. These incentives have been denied to him. His second grievance is that as per Clause-11.4 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007, he had made voluntary disclosure, pursuant whereto, bills were calculated, but while doing so in spite of taking the “F-Factor” at 0.50 as in case of all others bills were raised, on basis of “F-Factor” as 0.75, which led to arbitrarily inflated bills. His further grievance is that while raising the said bills, in spite of setting up consumed - 2 - units/billed units, as against units for which punitive bills have been raised and then applying the rate the calculation has been made otherwise. It is not in accordance with law. His another grievance is that even though Board was obliged to replace the meter immediately and raise bills in accordance with a correct meter, though, charges were levied for meter. The meter was replaced only after about four to five months and in the mean time billing was made on immediate guarantee basis for which petitioner could not be liable. In my view, all these grievances require investigation of facts before the rights of parties can finally be determined. Petitioner states that he had moved the Consumer Forum under the Act but that being non-functional, he has left with no remedy. He further submits that because of these arbitrariness, dues have been accumulated and the line has been disconnected. In the situation aforesaid, I direct that pending resolution of disputes, on petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs, the electric connection of the petitioner would be restored. For resolution of dispute, which at the first instance is not possible by this Court and the Consumer Forum under the Act as non-functional, I direct that petitioner should make a detail representation along with all connected documents to the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the Board, who shall - 3 - decide the same expeditiously after hearing the parties and pass a reasoned order on all issues that may be raised by the petitioner including those as noticed above. Considering the fact that it involves financial liability, it is expected that the Chief Engineer, Commercial would decide the matter expeditiously not later than one month. On such decision being taken, a fresh bill would have to be prepared in accordance with the said order and served on the petitioner immediately for payment. In case, petitioner is aggrieved by the said findings, he would be entitled to resort to such remedies, as may be available to him. With these observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. Trivedi ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. )