IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.5549 of 2010 M/S Shree Ram Wire, A Prtnership Firm Having Its Place Of Business At Katra, P.S.Malsalami, Patna City , Distt-Patna, Through One Of Its Partners , Ravi Shankar Kumar , S/O Ravindra Kumar , Rikabganj, Katra, P.S.Malsalami, Patna City, Distt- Patna. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking,Mangles Road, Patna 5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (East), Shivalaya Market, Ashok Rajpath, Patna 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer,Electric Supply Division , Patna City, Patna 7. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Katra, Patna City, Patna. ------------------ For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the BSEB : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate. 4. 11.8.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of exemption as provided under the Industrial Policy, 2006 to the petitioner, in so far as it relates to payment of monthly minimum guarantee charges. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture of wires 2 and for which he was provided with an electrical connection of 124 KVA by the respondent Board. It is not in dispute that the commercial production in the establishment of the petitioner commenced on 18.2.2008 as is manifest from the letter of the General Manager, District Industries Centre dated 19.2.2008 (Annexure-1). Certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner, inter alia, for unauthorized use of electricity, pursuant to an inspection held on 10.2.2009 and as a consequence whereof the supply of the electrical line of the petitioner was disconnected with effect from 10.8.2009. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the authorities in disconnecting the electricity connection, approached this Court through C.W.J.C.No.11495 of 2009 and a bench of this court, upon consideration of rival contentions, by an interim order dated 17.9.2009, directed the restoration of the electricity connection of the petitioner, subject to a deposit of 25% of the punitive 3 bill raised by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) which was to the tune of about Rs.45 lacs. The bench, hearing the said writ petition, by a subsequent order dated 1.12.2009 restrained the respondents from insisting upon the payment of the bill for the period while the line of the petitioner stood disconnected i.e. from 10.8.2009 until its re-connection on 3.10.2009, after the meter was supplied by the petitioner. It is necessary to mention here that as a fall out of the inspection report, a first information report was instituted under the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the issue is now pending before the Special Court constituted under the Act. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the supply of the meter by the petitioner, in the light of the order passed in C.W.J.C.No.11495 of 2009. the electrical connection was re- energized w.e.f. 3.10.2009. It so appears that the meter supplied by the petitioner, was running at a speed which was 4 % lower than the normal speed. In that view of the matter, the 4 meter was again replaced on 5.6.2010 by a third meter. It is again not in dispute that since after the installation of third meter on 5.6.2010, the respondent Board have been granting the benefit to the petitioner to which he was entitled under the Industrial Policy, 2006 in so far as it prohibits levy of monthly minimum guarantee charges. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the Industrial Policy, 2006 protecting the petitioner establishment from payment of monthly minimum guarantee charges, the respondent Board, by reason of the alleged slow running of the meter has been forcing the petitioner to pay the same and have been raising bill on the basis of the monthly minimum guarantee charges. It is stated that on demand, the respondents have also realized an amount of Rs.12 lacs from the petitioner for the said period. As admittedly, the respondents have allowed the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 2006 to the petitioner with effect from 5 5.6.2010, the only issue remains is the amount payable by the petitioner towards the electricity charges for the period 3.10.2009 to 5.6.2010, while the meter was allegedly running slow. The matter reached the Chief Engineer (Commercial), who upon consideration of the representation of the petitioner filed in this regard, has directed the Electrical Superintending Engineer to consider the claim put forth by the petitioner in the light of the provisions of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007, while taking note of Clause 8.14 (ii) of the said Code, which does not authorize the officers of the Board to bill the consumer on the basis of monthly minimum guarantee charges. The direction of the Chief Engineer (Commercial) is placed at Annexure-7. In view of the direction of the Chief Engineer, (Commercial) dated 18.2.2010, a report has been submitted by the Electrical Superintending Engineer as contained in Annexure-C/5 to the counter affidavit, addressed to the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, PESU Area in which he has fairly 6 admitted that on inspection of the meter in question which was installed on 3.10.2009, no tampering was found save and except that it was recording the supply at a rate of 4% lesser than the normal rate. The Electrical Superintending Engineer has thus recommended for recalculation of the electricity bill of the petitioner for the period in question by adding 4% of the monthly reading recorded for each of the month and for issuance of revised bill taking into consideration the provision under the Industrial Policy, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has rested at that stage despite the report of the Electrical Superintending Engineer having been forwarded almost a year back in August, 2010. No action has been taken by the respondent Board either to issue any revised bill or to refrain from raising current bill by mentioning the arrear pertaining to the said period. He submits that by mentioning of the arrears on each of the current bill being issued by the Board, the petitioner is under constant threat of disconnection for non payment of the arrears. 7 It is thus contended that the petitioner can not be held liable for a situation which arises by reason of non-completion of the formalities by the concerned authorities of the respondent Board in the light of the direction of the Chief Engineer, Commercial and the report of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated 30.8.2010. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records , this Court finds substance in the contention advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The writ petition is thus disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos.3 and 4 herein i.e. the Chief Engineer, Commercial and the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, PESU, Patna to issue appropriate direction to the concerned authority of the Board, for issuance of a revised bill to the petitioner for the period 3.10.2009 to 5.6.2010 taking into consideration, the report of the Electrical Superintending Engineer as contained in Annexure-C/5 and the provisions of Clause 8.14 of the Bihar Electrical Supply Code, 2007 as well as the exemption granted under the 8 Industrial policy, 2006. Needless to add that until the respondent Board issues a revised bill for the period aforesaid, they would not be insisting upon the petitioner to pay the arrears pertaining the period 3.10.2009 to 5.6.2010. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)