IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12386 of 2006 Lalla Sao, son of Late Munshi Sah, resident of Mohalla – Bare Ki Gali, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, Town and District Patna …… Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Managing Director, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 3. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board having its office at Mohalla – Mitan Ghat, Patna City, Patna 4. Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board having its office at Mohalla – Mitan Ghat, Patna City, Patna 5. Sub Divisional Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board having its office at Padri Ki Haweli, Patna City, Patna 6. Junior Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board having its office at Mangle Talab, Gandhi Sarvovar, Chowk, Patna City, Patna For the Petitioner : M/s D.K.Sinha, Senior Advocate and Abhinay Raj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate 6 08.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board. Petitioner seeks quashing of the bill as contained in Annexure 2 on the ground that the same has been raised by enhancing Horse Power / Wattage and charging higher minimum guarantee than what was agreed at the time of giving the connection and for which the meter was provided. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the bill dated June 2006 connected load has been shown to be of 10 H.P. and minimum chargeable unit as 700 per month whereas in the next month, i.e., Annexure 2 the same has been shown to be 12 H.P. and the minimum chargeable unit 800 per month. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner was consuming more electricity then he would have been liable to pay the amount commensurate to his consumption. However, from the bill, it appears that he has consumed less than 700 units, i.e., the minimum guaranteed consumption. In above view of the matter, it is submitted that such enhancement could not have been done by the Bihar State Electricity Board. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and stand has been taken that upon inspection done on 12.4.2006 it appears that petitioner was consuming 12.15 H.P. and, thus, the same has been raised from a connection from 10 H.P. to a connection of 12 H.P. Prima facie, the aforesaid submission appears to be attractive, 3 however, the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards another inspection report as contained in Annexure A which shows that the motor was of 10 H.P. and the load was of 10.37 H.P. only. On both occasions endorsement has been made that the petitioner has refused to counter sign the inspection report. At the time of hearing relevant provision contained in Clause 16.9 of 1991 Tariff has been produced on behalf of the respondents. However, learned counsel could not show that even the procedure laid down in the aforesaid clause has been followed and any show cause was asked from the petitioner for enhancement of the load to 12 H.P. It is admitted that the petitioner has only applied for 10 H.P. load for running Aata Chakki . In above view of the mater , since it does not appear that even the procedure laid down under the provisions as contained in aforesaid clause of 1991 Tariff has been followed, the bill for July 2006 as contained in Annexure 2 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned authority 4 to reconsider the same after issuing show cause and following the procedure laid down in the relevant rules and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. It is made clear that that the order is being passed in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, upon issuance of such show cause notice he should submit his response expeditiously but not later than two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, this application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Before parting with the case it would be necessary to indicate that during the pendency of the application a direction was given to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is duty bound to pay his dues upon the bills raised after such re-connection also otherwise the respondent would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) 5