IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11763 of 2002 M/S Nirman Cements Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its head office at 501B, Ashiana Chambers, Exhibition Road, Patna, through its Director Sri Sushil Kumar Khemka – Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Chairman. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Bihar Area Electricity Board, Serpentine Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Circle, Patna. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Comm. & Rev.) Patna Electrical Circle, Patna. --- Respondents. ********** For the petitioner: M/S S.D. Sanjay, with Gautam Kejriwal, Advocates. For Respondent BSEB: M/S Vinay Kirti Singh with Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates. ********* 11/ 03-12-2010 Heard Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials, who have been arrayed as respondents. 2. The petitioner has come before this Court with a limited prayer that order dated 14.05.2002 passed by the Advisory Board, the appellate authority, in Appeal No. 1 of 2002 (Bihar State Electricity Board versus M/S Nirman Cement Ltd.) (Annexure-14), which has attained its finality, be directed to be implemented by the respondents and if the petitioner is entitled to refund, pursuant to the aforesaid order, then that amount may 2 either be adjusted in future bills or alternatively, the money may be refunded to him. 3. Short facts involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner is H.T. consumer of the respondent- Board and is running a cement factory. On 14.02.2001 a check meter parallel to the existing meter was installed by the Electrical Engineers of the Respondent-Board in the factory premises of the petitioner and on the basis of reading recorded in the existing meter and on its comparison with the check meter, it was found that existing meter installed in the premises of the petitioner’s factory was running slow by 6.19% and KVAH part was also running slow by 5.73%. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the competent officer of the respondent- Board. On the basis of the aforesaid report respondent- Board issued an electrical bill on 04.04.2001(Annexure-2) to the petitioner for the month of March 2001, wherein it also added a supplementary bill for the previous period of six months, i.e., from September, 2000 to February 2001. Aforesaid bill was issued by an additional demand for 95,746 units allegedly consumed by the petitioner’s factory. The total amount of bill raised against the petitioner on 04.04.2001 was Rs.1,24,45,263/- (Rs. One crore, twenty four lac, forty five thousand two hundred sixty three) only. Under protest, the petitioner deposited 3 the entire amount of the bill dated 04.04.2001 raised by the respondent- Board and gave a notice to the respondent Board, pointing out certain discrepancies/irregularities in the aforesaid bill raised by the Board. Finally on 19.06.2001, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure- 7) under section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In view of the petition filed by the petitioner, the meter was tested in the laboratory of M.R.T. (East) of PESU. Ultimately, the Senior Electrical Inspector, Bihar, Patna passed his order on 28.11.2001 (Annexure-12) directing therein that the bill should be raised on the basis of average consumption for last three previous months and after preparation of such bill, the balance amount of the petitioner may be adjusted in future bills. The operative portion of the order dated 28.11.2001 is reproduced herein below: Þnksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds ihfV'ku la0& 307@1983 ds vkns'kkuqlkj tks fQygky ubZ ehVj yxkbZ xbZ gS vkSj ;g lgh :i ls py jgk gS rks ftl le; ehVj yxkbZ xbZ gS] ml frfFk ds ckn rhu efgus dk vkSlr ds vk/kkj ij [kir dh xbZ fo/kqr dk foi= lq/kkj dj fcgkj jkT; fo/kqr~ cksMZ oknh dks ns ,oa 'ks’k jkf”k tks dEiuh ds }kjk vUMj izksVsLV tek dh xbZ gS] ml jkf”k dks oknh ds vxys foi= es lek;ksftr dj yh tk;AÞ 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Senior Electrical Inspector, Bihar, Patna, the respondent-Board filed an appeal before the Advisory Board under section 36(2) of the said Act, which gave rise to Appeal No. 1 of 2002. In the aforesaid appeal both sides 4 were heard and with the consent of the parties, appeal was disposed of on 14.05.2002 (Annexure-14) , whereby order passed by Senior Electrical Inspector was modified to some extent, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:- Þnksuks i{k lquokbZ ds nkSjku lger gS fd u;k ehVj lgh <ax ls dk;Z dj jgk gSA bl ehVj dks yxk;s gq;s Hkh yxHkx ,d o"kZ gks jgk gS ;kuh o’kZ Hkj esa lhesUV m|ksx es tks Hkh ekSleh mrkj p<+ko gksrs gS mu lcdk Hkh u;s ehVj dh vof/k esa vuqHko gks pqdk gSA vr% u;s ehVj ds nkSjku izklafxd 6 eghus dh vof/k] ;kuh mUgha 6 dSysUMj eghus ds fy,] ftuds fy, mlds iwoZ ds o’kZ esa nks’kiw.kZ ehVj yxk Fkk] mudh jhfMax ds vk/kkj ij ;g vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd fctyh [kir dk tks cksMZ }kjk vfrfjDr vkadyu fd;k x;k Fkk og lgh gS vFkok ughaA vr% ojh; fo|qr fujh{kd ds vkns'k esa vkaf'kd la”kks/ku djrs gq, ,MHkkbZtjh cksMZ }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd u;s ehVj dh vof/k esa mUgha 6 dSysUMj eghus dh jhfMx dh rqyuk fooknh ehVj ds mUgha eghus dh vof/k ds lkFk dj fy;k tk; vkSj blesa ;fn c<+ksRrjh Øe”k% 6-19% (kwh) ,oa h 7396 (KVAH) esa vf/kd dh gksxh rks fctyh cksMZ }kjk fn;s x;s vfrfjDr foi= esa gLr{ksi dh vko”;d ugha gSAÞ 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent- Board is not acting as per direction issued by the appellate authority, which has attained its finality in view of the fact that the Board has not challenged the said order either before any higher forum or before any court of competent jurisdiction. 6. From perusal of the appellate order dated 14.05.2002, it is apparent that the appeal was disposed of with consent of the parties. Admittedly, the aforesaid appeal was filed by the respondent- Board and the aforesaid appellate order has not been challenged either before any higher competent authority or before this Court. 5 Thus, it is apparent that the said order dated 14.05.2002 (Annexure-14) has attained its finality. 7. The present writ petition was filed on 22.10.2002, and since then, more than eight years have elapsed. The matter was heard on different dates. Only plea taken by the respondent-Board was that against the aforesaid appellate order passed by the Advisory Board, they have filed a petition for clarification, which is still pending. For that reason, the matter was adjourned on 18.07.2003, and even thereafter, by a Bench of this Court. 8. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board and its officials has stated that even today that matter has not been disposed of and is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that respondent-Board has not challenged the aforesaid order before any higher authority/ forum and, therefore, the respondents are obliged to carry out the order issued by the appellate authority, which was passed at their behest. 9. I have perused the order dated 14.05.2002 minutely and this Court does not find any vagueness in the order passed by the appellate authority. The respondents cannot be permitted to sit tight over the matter and act arbitrarily. The aforesaid appeal was admittedly filed at the behest of the respondents and that 6 has been disposed of with the consent of the parties, and so they are legally obliged to carry out the aforesaid order/direction passed by the appellate authority. Merely on the ground of pendency of the clarificatory petition, the valid claim of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be denied by the respondents. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to carry out the order/direction dated 14.05.2002 (Annexure-14) issued by the appellate authority. The respondent-Board and its concerned authorities are directed to issue a rectified bill to the petitioner for the period in question. The balance amount payable to the petitioner must be either adjusted against his future bills or be refunded to him within a period of three months from today. In view of the fact that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount of bill under protest in the year 2001, therefore, he shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% on the amount payable to him from the date of deposit till the date of refund/adjustment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)