IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7190 of 2009 M/S Shivam Aqua Industries, Boring Canal Road, Patna, through its Director, Subodh Kumar, Son of Late Ram Briksh Mahto, resident of 16 Sardar Patel Path, North S.K. Puri, P.S.-Sri Krishna Puri, District-Patna. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (West). 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, New Capital Sub. Division, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (West), Patna. 4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue), New Capital Division, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Patna. 5. The Junior Electrical Engineer, New Capital Sub. Division, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (West), Patna. -Respondents. ----------- 04 15.04.2010 The petitioner is small scale industry having a registration for manufacturing of mineral water/packaged drinking water/distilled water. It is not in dispute that petitioner got the certificate of registration amended for manufacturing packaged drinking water only. The significance of these would be noted later. The petitioner had an electric connection from the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board in respect of a sanctioned load of 32 HP. On 08.09.2008 Special Task Force (STF) of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) had inspected the petitioner’s premises and allegedly found a load of 76 HP. Thus, there was substantial excess load found. Treating it to be unauthorized use, assessment was made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Thereafter, petitioner was served with - 2 - various bills and ultimately the total arrears amounted to about Rs.9 lacs. Petitioner sought for permission to pay the same in instalment and entered for an agreement in paying the said arrears of about Rs.9 lacs in five equal instalments. After paying two instalments petitioner protested and stopped paying the arrear amounts. The consequence whereof was that his electricity was disconnected. I may clarify here that while paying the two instalments, petitioner paid the punitive assessment of about Rs.4 lacs in full as made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Now, the dispute is with regard to the balance. On behalf of the respondent-Board, it is submitted that the STF having found the installed load to be 76 HP, all subsequent billings were done, treating the sanctioned load of petitioner as 76 HP. As petitioner’s consumption was low, he was made liable to pay the monthly minimum guarantee and electric charges were worked out at 100 units per HP for 76 HP, the actual consumption being substantially less. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he being a registered small scale industry is not liable to pay MMG/AMG for a period of 5 years under the Bihar Industrial Policy, 2006. The exemption being there under the policy is not disputed by the Board. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner manufactures distilled water, which is a non-exempted item. With reference to certificate, as granted by the Department of Industries, it is to be found that what petitioner, in fact, manufactures - 3 - packaged drinking water, though it has a registration for manufacturing of mineral water and distilled water as well. It is not disputed that packaged drinking water industry is exempted under Bihar Industrial Policy, 2006. The question is, what is the product manufactured by the petitioner. So far as the distilled water is concerned, that certainly is not manufactured by petitioner, because manufacturing process is entirely different. After filtration of water for removal of impurity, it is boiled. Water vapour so produced in the process of distillation is then condensed. That is distilled water basically. That admittedly is not the process of manufacturing followed by the petitioner. So far as mineral water is concerned, it is water from natural source freed of impurities with balanced mineral content. Petitioner again does not manufacture this. What petitioner does is, it obtains ground water, filters impurities and makes it pyrogen free and bottles it in PET bottles blown at the factory itself. This is packaged drinking water. There cannot be any confusion in this regard. In respect of petitioner’s industry itself, this question had been considered in detail by this Court in the case of M/s Shivam Aqua Industries Private Limited Vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Patna & Ors. since reported in 2006(4) PLJR 580 wherein at one time, petitioner was being charged with manufacturing of aerated drinks. Court held that it is manufacturing packaged drinking water. I may mention here that aerated drinks falls within the category of beverages and not water. - 4 - Thus seen, petitioner, not being manufacturer of distilled water but being manufacturer of packaged drinking water, is clearly exempted under the Industrial Policy, as aforesaid. That being so, the monthly consumption bills, as raised after the STF raid, even though for 76 HP sanctioned load, it cannot include any component of MMG/AMG or any fixed minimum charge other than actual energy consumption charge. That being so, I have no option but to direct the respondent-Board to revise the monthly bills, which have been raised after the STF raid on basis of 76 HP restricting it to actual consumption bills with no minimum liabilities. The same should be done within 15 days. On revision of those bills the petitioner would be served a detailed bill for payment thereof. On payment whereof petitioner’s electric line shall be reconnected. Petitioner’s electric connection has remained disconnected, as such, however, without waiting for bills, if petitioner deposits Rs. 2 lacs, then within 24 hours of the payment, his electricity would be restored, subject to bills being served, as noted above, and thereafter payments made, as noted above. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)