Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 527 (PAT)

Snehlata Gupta v. Chairman, Bihar State

2006-06-26

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the bills issued by the respondents on 25.1.2006 and also to prepare proper bills on the basis of fresh load on domestic tariff. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid bill was prepared and sent on the basis of the assumption that although the sanctioned/contracted load was 4 K.W. but the load used in the premises of the petitioner was 14 K.W. and also that the petitioner was running a hostel in a portion of her premises and hence she was amenable to commercial tariff and not domestic tariff for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court vide order dated 6.3.2006 directed the Officers of the Board to visit the premises of the petitioner for carrying out inspection in presence of the petitioner and accordingly inspection was held and it was found by the Inspecting Authorities of the respondent-Board that the load used for the petitioners premises was 7 K.W. and also that there were four floors in the petitioners house, out of which ground floor, first floor and second floor were used for the personal purpose of the petitioner, whereas on the third floor there were tenants in four rooms but the number of students were not stated. He further avers that in this report there was no finding that any Board was found stating that the petitioners building contains a hostel also. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has no objection to the finding of the Inspecting Authorities that the exact load for the petitioners building was 7 K.W. and hence the authorities may fix the bills accordingly, but he objects to the second finding of the Inspecting Authorities and submits that no doubt there are four tenants in the third floor of the premises but no hostel is running in the said premises and hence commercial tariff will not be applicable in this case. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that according to the general terms and conditions with respect to the supply of electricity as modified vide notification dated 29.10.2002 penalties or compensation for malpractices includes theft and pilferage and paragraph 8(A) thereof two provisions have been included stating that malpractice including theft and pilferage will include supply under lower tariff for the purpose under which higher tariff is in force and consumption on domestic supply exceeds sanctioned/contracted load. He also states that so far second point is concerned, the petitioner has herself admitted but with respect to the first it had been found in two enquiries that the electricity supply under domestic tariff, which is the lower tariff, was being used for commercial tariff which is a higher tariff, which is the lower tariff, was being used for commercial tariff which is a higher tariff. He further states that the petitioner in her writ petition has herself accepted the fact that there are four tenants in the third floor of the house and one of the tenants had also stated before the Inspecting Authorities that the said rooms are under the tenancy of the tenants. Hence, learned counsel for the Board submits that instead of simple tenancy the petitioner is running a hostel in the third floor of the premises and so according to the said terms and conditions it is malpractice, theft or pilferage and hence the action of the respondent-authorities is quite legal and justified. 5. After considering the arguments of the parties and after perusing the materials on record. It is quite apparent that the sanctioned load was 4 K.W. but it was found that as the premises was huge, a load of 7 K.W. was utilized. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rather he admits the same. Hence the Board would be justified if it prepares a bill after passing an order fixing it on the basis of load of 7 K.W. 6. So far the other question of using the premises for commercial use is concerned, there is no material at all to show that the petitioner is running a hostel in any portion of her premises and the material on record is only the finding of the Inspecting Authorities. So far the other question of using the premises for commercial use is concerned, there is no material at all to show that the petitioner is running a hostel in any portion of her premises and the material on record is only the finding of the Inspecting Authorities. However, the case of the petitioner is specifically that a small portion of the premises in the third floor has been rented out to four persons, who are using the same for their residential purposes only. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that commercial tariff will not be applicable in such cases and the Board is directed to prepare the bill of the petitioners premises on the basis of domestic tariff at the load of 7 K.W. with effect from the date of first inspection dated 16.1.2006 because on that date the petitioner was found to be using a load of 14 K.W. but that inspection was made behind the back of the petitioner and in the second inspection held in presence of the petitioner it was found by them to be 7 K.W. 8. With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is disposed of.