IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10967 of 2009 ***** M/s J M G Steels (Pvt.) Ltd., having its Works near Industrial Area, Fatwah, District Patna appearing through its Director Satish Kumar Goenka, son of Gopi Chand Goenka, resident of Tehrighat, Police Station Khajekallan, Town Patna City, District Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road, Police Station Kothwali, Town and District Patna appearing through its Chairman. 2. The Elecl. Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Circle, R. Block, Town and District Patna. 3. The Elecl. Executive Engineer (Revenue and Commercial Division), Patna Electric Circle, R. Block, Town and District Patna. ------------- 3. 11.9.2009. Petitioner is a newly started steel unit at Fatwah Industrial Area. It was given a new electric connection based on a contract demand of 3477 KVA on 7.1.2009. In terms of the Tariff classification petitioner falls in the category of HTSS. In terms of Clause 11.8 (c) which is effective from 1.9.2008 a consumer of the kind is required to make security deposit depending on the contract demand but it is liable for revision every year in April-May of next year based on the average bills for the previous years. The provision has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application and is also reproduced hereinbelow for easy reference: “11.8 (c) The amount of security deposit is liable to be enhanced every year, in April-May of next year on the basis of average bills for previous years. In default of payment of additional security deposit, wherever payable after review, the service line may be disconnected on serving thirty days notice and connection thereafter can be restored only if the deposit is made in full along with the prescribed reconnection charges and surcharge @ 1.5% per month or part thereof on the amount of outstanding.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the grant of the service connection on 7th January, 2009 the petitioner has - 2 - been paying his current bills and meeting all the obligations but all of a sudden on 18.8.2009, in terms of Annexure-1, the Electrical Executive Engineer (Rev. & Com.) raised a demand stating that he should deposit additional security amount to the tune of Rs.24,52,940/-. The security deposit must be made before 16.9.2009 failing which disconnection may be made. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said demand is in breach of the provisions of the tariff and if it is so it is also illegal and irrational. His emphasis is that the provisions are very clear that the enhancement of security deposit will be based on the average bills for the previous years (emphasis mine) and it can only be enhanced every year in April-May of next year (emphasis mine). A plain reading of the same means that since the petitioner was granted a communication on 7th January, 2009 the respondents have to wait for the month April-May, 2010 to see the average pattern of the bills for the last year or years. They cannot be allowed to demand additional deposit in a matter of months when the year is yet to be over. In this regard, he relies on the definition of “year” under section 66 of the General Clauses Act as well as definition of “financial year” which is section 4 of the said Act. Learned counsel representing the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, however, submits that April-May of next year should be read as financial year and even on the basis of two months bills of February and March looking at the consumption pattern the additional deposit can be demanded. The Court, however, has certain reservation on such a stand - 3 - being taken by the respondents. The tariff is a statutory provision and the provision categorically states that additional security deposit enhancement can only take place in April-May of next year. Since the petitioner was given a connection in January, 2009 taking the definition of the word “year” in the General Clauses Act, the year means the calendar year and the respondents therefore can only raise or demand additional security deposit based on the past consumption of one year/years of the previous year. Since the necessary time span has not elapsed in terms of the tariff provisions contained in Clause 11.8(c) the demand made by the respondents in terms of Anenxure-1 dated 18.8.2009 seems to be misplaced. The respondents will have to wait till the next year which is April-May, 2010 to be able to demand additional deposit. The present demand Annexure-1 dated 18.8.2009, which is contrary to the tariff provisions, is hereby quashed and the writ application is allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)