IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8370 of 2002 SHRI BIJOY KUMAR DAGA, son of Late B.R. Daga, Proprietor of M/s B.K. Products, residence of Jagat Narayan Lal Road, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking area Board, Patna. 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Rajendra Nagar, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking East, Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 10/ 04.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board. The petitioner prays for quashing the Bill dated 18.05.2001 whereby an additional demand of Rs. 70,990/- has been raised by the respondents against the petitioner in exercise of power under clause 16.9 of the Tariff for the alleged excess load said to have been found in the petitioner’s Company during the alleged inspection on 16.05.2001. The petitioner is having two electric connections in the Factory, one being in the category of Low Tension Industrial Service (LTIS) and the other being Commercial Service-II (CS-II). The sanction of load of LTIS is 11 H.P. whereas CS-II is 5 KW. An inspection of the premises was made on 16.05.2001. In course of inspection the Electrical Executive Engineer found load to the tune of 22.177 H.P. being used in the LTIS category in place of 11 HP. However, the inspecting officials found that the load used in the CS-II category was well within the sanctioned load of 5 KW. The petitioner made a protest pursuant to which the General Manager constituted a committee for re-verification. Again the inspection was made on - 2 - 17.08.2001and in course of inspection it was found that the load in respect of LTIS was 10.75 HP and that under CS-II was 5.720 KW. Thus the Chief Engineer PESU vide Memo No. 4064 dated 22.09.2001 observed that the bill from 17.05.2001 to 16.08.2001 would be charged on the basis of load of 23 HP in LTIS category and from 17.08.2001 it will be charged on the basis of 11 HP. The petitioner states that even if the alleged load factor of two heaters are included, even then the load would come to about 18 HP and not 23 HP. He further submits that the authority ought to have assessed the load factor on 16.05.2001, as petitioner had made a protest to the same. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Board submits that after the first inspection in order to bring down the load factor the two heaters were removed. He submits that the order of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, as contained in Annexure-6, dated 22.09.2001, is in accordance with law. Heard the counsel for the parties, it would appear from Annexure-1, that in course of inspection, the category of load as LTIS connection was found to be 22.177 HP against sanctioned capacity of 11 HP. During the re-verification the load factor as against LTIS connection was found to be 10.75 HP. According to the Board, the load factor came down as two of the heaters were removed. As per the counsel for the petitioner, even if the load factor of two heaters would have been added the same at the most would have come to 18 HP and in no circumstances, the charge for the period between 17.05.2001 to - 3 - 16.08.2001 could have been charged on the basis of 23 HP. So far as this part of the grievance is concerned, if the petitioner approaches the Chief Engineer, Commercial, he would dispose of the representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)