Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 92 (PAT)

Ravi Hi–Tech Limited v. State of Bihar

1996-02-08

S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body1996
JUDGMENT S.K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, J. 1. In the present writ application the petitioner has prayed for a writ/order or direction declaring that petitioner's unit is exempted from payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges for a period of 5 years from the date of its production in view of 1993 Industrial Policy. Further prayer has been made for quashing AMG bill dated 26.4.1994 which has been raised for the year 1994-95 for a sum of Rs. 8,28,722.72, which has been calculated on the basis of a defective meter. 2. According to the petitioner, its company, which is a registered one under the Income Tax Act, 1956, undertook to install a Rolling Mill at Jamshedpur and it entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for a contract load of 350 K.V.A. This agreement was entered into on 13.8.1993. After getting connection from the Board, the petitioner started its production from 6.7.1994. In view of new tariff of the Board, a consumer was required to install shunt capacitors of appropriate ratings in the premises. The petitioner accordingly installed shunt capacitors to the satisfaction of the Board before electric connection was provided to the Unit. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 8.8.1994 an AMG bill for the month of July, 1994 was issued in which maximum demand rating was shown at 478 K.V.A. and power factor was shown at 0.12. According to the petitioner, the said bill was absolutely wrong one inasmuch as the unit having connection of 350 K.V.A. load it could not have drawn a load of 478 K.V.A. for the month of July, 1994. As the power factor was also low at 0.12 specially when the unit has installed shunt capacitor and as such, power factor could not have fallen to such low level which clearly shows that the meter was defective since the date of its installation i.e. 6.7.1994. On the receipt of the said bill, the petitioner forthwith wrote a letter to the Board about such defective meter. The meter was checked and was found to be defective by the officials of the Board. However, the same was replaced by new meter. According to the petitioner, even this new matter installed on 23.2.1995 is defective as power factor was shown at 0.17 for the month of March, 1995. 3. Mr. The meter was checked and was found to be defective by the officials of the Board. However, the same was replaced by new meter. According to the petitioner, even this new matter installed on 23.2.1995 is defective as power factor was shown at 0.17 for the month of March, 1995. 3. Mr. Bajla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that as the petitioner's unit came into production on 6.7.1994, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as provided under the Industrial Policy of the State of Bihar. Advancing argument, it is contended that when the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Board, it was under the impression that it will be entitled to get exemption from payment of AMG charges for a period of 5 years as per the policy of the State Government. But now at a later stage the Board cannot back out from its promises as laid down in the Industrial Policy of the State Government in According to Mr. Bajla, this Industrial Policy was implemented by the State Government in consultation with its other departments including the Board and as such, the policy decision is binding on the Board in view of Section 78–A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 4. Countering the argument of Mr. Bajla, Mr. Rajnandan Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board has strongly contended that the petitioner cannot claim any exemption under the Industrial Policy, as because the tariff of the Board was never modified on the basis of said Industrial Policy. According to him, the policy decision of the State Government shall be binding on the Board only when there is some amendment in the tariff regarding the said exemption. Neither any resolution has been issued by the Board nor incorporated in the tariff and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim for exemption of AMG charges. 5. It appears that in order to give impetus to the Industrial units in the State of Bihar. Industrial policy was announced on 10.6.1993. The same was issued in the name of Governor of Bihar and was published in the official Gazette. 6. Clause 1 of the Electrical Subsidy of Industrial Policy provides inter alia, that Industrial units having connected load upto 500 K.V.A. shall get exemption in AMG charges for a period of five years from the date of commencement of their production. The same was issued in the name of Governor of Bihar and was published in the official Gazette. 6. Clause 1 of the Electrical Subsidy of Industrial Policy provides inter alia, that Industrial units having connected load upto 500 K.V.A. shall get exemption in AMG charges for a period of five years from the date of commencement of their production. Extract of said policy has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. 7. However, it is an admitted fact that in view of such policy decision of the State Government, there is no change in the tariff. Only because some policy decision has been taken, the petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, exemption of AMG charges on the basis of said policy until and unless the tariff is modified to that extent or the said resolution is incorporated in the tariff itself. 8. Section 78–A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 reads as follows:– "Directions by the State Government– (1) In the discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such directions of questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government. (2) If any dispute arises between the Board and the State Government as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, it shall be referred to the Authority whose decision thereon shall be final." 9. The contention of Mr. Bajla that when this policy decision was taken by the State Government in consultation with the other departments of the State Government including the Board and as such the Board is bound to follow the said decision, in my view, is not sustainable inasmuch as Board is not a department of the Government rather it is an agency which is bound by its own tariff made under the law. 10. Secondly, Section 78–A speaks of directions by the Government. No such direction has been brought to my notice by Mr. Bajla by which it can be said that in view of the Industrial Policy the State Government has directed the Board to give effect to this policy by giving exemption to the Industrial unit regarding AMG charges. Thus, I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Bajla. 11. No such direction has been brought to my notice by Mr. Bajla by which it can be said that in view of the Industrial Policy the State Government has directed the Board to give effect to this policy by giving exemption to the Industrial unit regarding AMG charges. Thus, I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Bajla. 11. The different policy decisions of the State Government, in this regard were subject matter in other writ application before this Court and it appears that a Division Bench by its order dated 16.3.1994 passed in CWJC No. 9530/93 dismissed the said writ application finding no merit in the case. Similarly another Division Bench of this Court, relying on the said decision, permitted withdrawal of CWJC No. 317/94 (R) by an order dated 27.9.1994. 12. Second contention of Mr. Bajla that the impugned bill has been raised on the basis of defective meter, has bee controverted by the respondents in its counter affidavit. It is said that the defect in the meter was detected in February, 1995 and immediately it was replaced on 23.2.1995. It is asserted that on 6.7.1994 the electric connection was given to the petitioner's unit but prior to February, 1995 no protest was made regarding the matter. Prior to February, 1995 reading of the mater was taken and the same was found correct. The unit never protested against the K.V.A. recorded in the meter till February, 1995. As the rating of maximum demand was recorded to the extent of 480 K.V.A. for the month of January, 1995 which was highest K.V.A for the financial year 1994-95, so maximum demand has been raised in conformity with clause 16 (5) of the tariff notification. A joint meter reading was held by the committee in presence of officials of' the company and the same was duly signed by him. In support of his contention, Mr. Sahay has drawn my attention to Annexure–A to the counter affidavit. 13. In the circumstances, in my considered opinion, it is too late for the petitioner company to assert that the impugned bill was on the basis of a defective meter. I have already noticed that as soon as the matter was reported to the Board in February 1995, the same was immediately replaced and prior to that there was no complain against the defective meter. 14. I have already noticed that as soon as the matter was reported to the Board in February 1995, the same was immediately replaced and prior to that there was no complain against the defective meter. 14. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application and tile same is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.