IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15226 of 2009 1. M/S BRITE NEON SIGNS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 201-202, KASHI PLACE, NEW DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, P.O.- GPO, P.S. KOTWALI, PATNA - 800 001 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRASHANT LUTHRA, S/O SRI V.K. LUTHRA R/O D/68, S.K. PURI, P.O. & P.S. S.K.PURI, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD null VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER null PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NEW CAPITAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER NEW CAPITAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING (EAST), MANGLES ROAD, PATNA *** For the petitioner : Mr Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the BSEB : Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate *** 4 17.12.2009 By detailed orders dated 20.11.2009 and 08.12.2009, on facts in dispute being noted, Court sought clarifications on affidavit from the Bihar State Electricity Board (PESU). A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today which, in view of this Court, completely resolves the dispute. Petitioner is a Company involved in the business of advertising. For the purpose of advertisement, hoardings (sky sign), it needs illumination at night and, as such, apparently it had taken one connection for a hoarding at the railway crossing near R Block at the end of Bir Chand Patel Marg. As per petitioner, bills were raised and they paid the bills upto the last reading that is when the meter read 3288 units. Having paid that bill, the hoarding having been 2 disused, no bills were raised and served on them. That was on 04.12.1995. Now when they wanted a fresh connection for installation of fountains at the two ends of Bir Chand Patel Marg, arrears on that account in excess of Rs 1 lakh is forced against them. In that, it is shown that about Rs 52,000/- is on account of energy charges and about Rs 71,000/- is on account of delayed payment surcharge. This Court wanted details of the accounts which were filed in the counter affidavit subsequently. That clearly showed that factually there was no meter reading done after 1995 upto date for last almost 14 years but minimum charges energy billing was debited in the account alongwith delayed payment surcharge in respect thereof and that is how the demand grew. What Court surprising was that for every connection, a security deposit is taken. The moment dues surpass the security deposit, the consumer is asked to pay up the dues and failing which the supply is disconnected and agreement terminated. In the present case, on the plea that consumer did not ask positively for disconnection, in the ledger, billing continued ad infinitum for one and a half decade. Neither the security adjustments were done nor bills served and enforced nor connection shown to be disconnected. This Court then wanted the records in detail plus the whereabouts of the meter because meter was shown to be read regularly. Now a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the Board in which it is now admitted that after the last bill, which was based on actual consumption, was paid, there was no 3 further meter reading because the records disclosed that either location was not found or the location could not be located to enable meter reading. Thus, no bills were prepared and, accordingly, no bills were served but for the purposes of the account, the ledger continued without anyone realising that automatically the connection ought to have been disconnected which in fact had ceased to exist in 1995 itself. There is no statement in this affidavit as to whereabouts of the meter which also shows that in all probabilities in 1995 or soon thereafter even the meter was removed. In such a situation it now virtually stands admitted that the demand as raised on account of Account No 134701 is virtually a fictitious amount not realisable. That being so, there is no impediment now in giving fresh connection to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Board states that in view of earlier orders of this Court, fresh connection has already been granted on completion of formalities and as no dues in law exists, Board would not insist on payment thereof on that account that is Account No 134701 cannot be realised and is, accordingly, not payable. In view of this very fair stand of the Board, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)