Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 755 (MP)

Shrichand v. Chief Engineer, MPEB

2001-10-17

A.K.GOHIL

body2001
JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Electricity Bill for the month of October, 2000 of Service No. 194374 for a sum of Rs. 74,976.00. In nut shell the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that upon receiving the said bill, petitioner submitted a letter dated 15.11.2000 requesting the respondents to clarify as to how the said addition has been made in the bill and to also supply detailed reasons and justification for such additions but the respondents did not reply, the said letter. Apprehending illegal action the petitioner personally contacted the respondents. He· was informed that the said addition has been made because the respondents have clubbed the connected load of both meters and added the aforesaid amount for the past period. The petitioner submitted that the aforesaid action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and is without jurisdiction. His, further submission was that the respondents cannot club the load of two different connections situated of in two different premises and obtained for two different units. Thus prayed for its quashment. In reply the submission of learned counsel for respondents/MPEB is that there was a spot inspection on 19.2.2000 and 22.2.2000 and a Panchnama was prepared. The petitioner has taken two connections in one house (premises) and according to the rules if two connections are taken in one premises, then some higher charges are required to be paid by the consumer. The other submission of learned counsel for respondents/MPEB is that the petition is premature as the petitioner is having alternative remedy to get his matter settled from the Divisional Level Settlement Committee of the MPEB under newly incorporated clause 27-A in the general conditions for supply of electrical energy. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. According to the petitioner himself he has raised factual dispute in the petition about existence of M/s Priya Industries and an Oil Mill and Dal Mill in the premises. This factual dispute that both the units i.e. Oil Mill and Refinery are different units and whether situated in one premises of different premises is purely a question of fact which cannot be decided -in this writ petition as has been submitted by the petitioner himself in the petition. This factual dispute that both the units i.e. Oil Mill and Refinery are different units and whether situated in one premises of different premises is purely a question of fact which cannot be decided -in this writ petition as has been submitted by the petitioner himself in the petition. The respondents have drawn my attention on Annexure R-1 which is a Circular issued by the M.P. Electricity Board, Chief Engineer (Commercial) on 3.2.2000 in which it has been directed that in a case of billing of more than one industrial connections in one· premises, separate charges are payable but for that verification of the spot is necessary about the industrial connection. From perusal of this Circular of the MPEB itself learned counsel· for respondents/MPEB could not satisfy me whether in deciding the dispute about additional bill, they have followed the procedure detailed in the Circular or not. Respondents have not filed any document to show that the directions contained in the said Circular were ever followed by them. As per Circular it was the duty of the respondents authorities to verify the fact that the connections are owned by different entities from their record and it was also to be verified from the lease-deed and other legal documents that who was the occupier of the premises, and the facts stated by the petitioner were true or not after verification. Thus, in view of the aforesaid Circular, facts and circumstances of the case on record, such a dispute needs to be enquired and certain facts are to be verified and' enquired by the officers before raising a bill. Thus, this petition is disposed of with the direction that on depositing 20% amount of the bill in dispute the Divisional Level Settlement Committee of the MPEB shall decide the dispute and objections of the petitioner within a period of four months after issuing notice for hearing as well as after providing him an opportunity of hearing and as well as producing evidence in defence. The committee shall also disclose the entire material available with them against the petitioner before starting the hearing and shall also provide an opportunity, to file reply as well as fresh objections on the said bill and it is expected from the Committee that after holding a legal enquiry, shall decide the dispute by a reasoned order in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, rules/terms and conditions of agreement and Circular issued by the Department from time to time. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to cost.