JUDGMENT: I.P.MUKERJI, J. 1. FACTS AND CONTENTIONS: The writ petitioner is the owner of a husking mill. He wants electricity supply to run this mill. He is aggrieved by the estimate given by the respondent licensee to effect such supply. The case of the petitioner is like this. The husking mill is situated in a village in Dakshin Dinajpur. The writ petitioner made an application to the respondent licensee for grant of electricity supply to this mill. They issued him a quotation dated 18th February 2008 on 25th February 2008. According to this quotation, the writ petitioner had to pay Rs.37,215/- to get the connection. Its break up of the quotation is as follows: Security Deposit for 25 HP Rs.30,700/-, Provisional Service Charges Rs.4415/- and Materials Rs.2100/-. He filed a writ application in this court in 2009 being W.P. No. 5533(W) of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the respondent licensee in effecting electricity supply to him. That writ application was disposed of at the court application stage in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondent licensee, on 17th August 2009 by Pinaki Chandra Ghose J. by directing the respondent licensee to consider the application of the writ petitioner for grant of electricity supply within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of that order. 2. THAT order was passed some one and half years after the quotation dated 18th February 2008. At the time of passing of that order, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent licensee had indicated to this Court that the earlier quotation had been issued by mistake or that the earlier quotation was a part quotation or that it did not include the cost of the transformer. As I have already noted, the earlier quotation had taken into account that the husking mill of the petitioner required 25HP of electrical energy. Now at the time of consideration, pursuant to the order dated 17th August 2009 of Pinaki Chandra Ghose J., the respondent licensee revised its quotation from Rs.37,215/- to Rs.82,411/-on 30th September, 2009. The increase in the estimate was attributable, according to them to the proportionate cost of installing a transformer. Although the determination pursuant to the order of this court does not mention transformer cost, but in the affidavit-in-opposition the revised quotation is sought to be justified on that ground. The increase in the estimate was attributable, according to them to the proportionate cost of installing a transformer. Although the determination pursuant to the order of this court does not mention transformer cost, but in the affidavit-in-opposition the revised quotation is sought to be justified on that ground. In the reasons for the revised estimate it is only mentioned that Rs.3756 per KVA was being charged additionally. 3. WHILE it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the earlier estimate could not be revised, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent licensee that it has the power under the various notifications under the Electricity Act, 2003 to levy such charges. Further, judgments have been cited which empower the respondent licensee to impose the additional surcharges. These rules and notifications and the judgments will be discussed in the next subheading of the judgment. DISCUSSION, REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Sections 43 and 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empower the licensee to supply electricity upon payment of necessary charges and other compliances. Section 46 explains and expands section 43 by enacting that the State Commission may by regulations authorise the licensee to charge from the intending consumer expenses for providing any electric line or electric plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission by a notification No.22/WBERC in exercise of its power under section 46 and 181(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th October 2005 has made the following regulations: 12. Cost Schedule. For the purpose of preparing the estimates for new connection the distribution licensee shall prepare a Cost Schedule covering board specifications of various items and materials as well as man-hours of various categories of labour needed for providing any electric line or installing electrical plants or other facilities for the purpose of giving supply of electricity based on the actual cost data of the financial year immediately preceding the year in which the estimate is to be prepared. The Cost Schedule for the next two years shall be up dated by allowing percentage rise in cost of each item. On the fourth year new Cost Schedule is to be prepared which shall become the best cost for the next two years for percentage rise in cost and the process will continue. The Cost Schedule for the next two years shall be up dated by allowing percentage rise in cost of each item. On the fourth year new Cost Schedule is to be prepared which shall become the best cost for the next two years for percentage rise in cost and the process will continue. The cost schedule shall include supervision charges @15% of the total cost of material and labour. The Cost Schedule shall also specify the methodology of preparing the estimates. The above Cost Schedule shall be on the basis of making initial estimates for laying of electric line and/or erection of electrical plants facilities for extending supply to the applicant. The distribution licence shall publish such Cost Schedule and make available its copies to the general public on demand at a reasonable charge. Copy of the relevant parts of the cost Schedule which are more commonly required for domestic, commercial (LT) and agricultural applicants shall be displayed in the Notice Board of all the offices of the licensee which are authorized to give new connection/prepare estimate for new connection. 4. THE above regulation indicates that a cost schedule for materials and labour for providing electricity connection has to be prepared initially on the cost data of the financial year immediately preceding the year in which the estimate is to be prepared. THEreafter, the cost schedule for the next two years is to be updated by allowing a percentage rise in cost of each item. Now, it is argued by learned counsel for the writ petitioner citing the above regulation that once an estimate of Rs.37,215/- was given on February, 2008 it could not be revised in September, 2009. It has been stated in the affidavit-inopposition that the proportionate cost of transformer was not included in the February, 2008 estimate at all. THErefore, according to the respondent licensee it is not a question of revising an estimate before expiry of the specified time period under the above regulations but making the estimate final and complete. It seems quite absurd to me that, while noting in the initial estimate that the petitioner required 25HP, the respondent licensee did not include the proportionate cost of the transformer. However, the fact is that, the proportionate cost of the transformer was not included in the first estimate at all. It seems quite absurd to me that, while noting in the initial estimate that the petitioner required 25HP, the respondent licensee did not include the proportionate cost of the transformer. However, the fact is that, the proportionate cost of the transformer was not included in the first estimate at all. THErefore, the estimate submitted by the respondent licensee was in my opinion only provisional and not final. And it was only made final by including the proportionate cost of the transformer. In the circumstances, the above regulations do not help the writ petitioner at all. However, this kind of an abrupt and substantially higher estimate is not proper at all and is bound to take the petitioner by surprise. However, I am bound by four Division Bench decisions of this Court which approves this kind of transformer cost to be realised from a consumer, namely, Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v Deb Kumar Jash and Anr., reported in 2005(4) CHN 24 , West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v Mehedi Hassan Reaza, reported in 2007(4) CHN 767 , and two unreported decisions being FMA No. 248 of 2007, THE West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v Smt. Brinda Rani Mondal and Anr. decided on 16th December, 2008 and F.M.A. No. 1178 of 2007, THE Chairman and Ors. v Chinta Haran Das and Anr. decided 10th June, 2009. When the first writ was heard on 17th August 2009 before Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J., this point of transformer cost was not taken by the respondent licensee. Now, this order was passed some one and half years after the first estimate was given. During these one and half years there was no attempt by the respondent licensee to revise the quotation. It kept absolutely silent on the application for connection, by the petitioner, as a result of which he had to approach this court for relief. Now, after the order dated 17th August, 2009 was passed by this Court, it occurred to the respondent licensee that it forgot to include the proportionate transformer cost in that estimate. I have not appreciated this conduct at all and there is a considerable doubt in my mind whether this charge is being taken bonafide. Now, after the order dated 17th August, 2009 was passed by this Court, it occurred to the respondent licensee that it forgot to include the proportionate transformer cost in that estimate. I have not appreciated this conduct at all and there is a considerable doubt in my mind whether this charge is being taken bonafide. Since this is a writ court, it is no part of the courts jurisdiction to make an enquiry whether the transformer has been actually installed or will be installed in the future. I accept the respondents contention for the time being and keep this issue open. 5. HOWEVER, following the above provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the above judgments of the Division Bench of our Court I hold that the petitioner is liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.82,411/- to obtain electricity connection. But, in view of the above conduct of the respondent licensee, I hold that the writ petitioner will be entitled to get electricity connection upon payment of the initial estimate amount of Rs.37,215/-. The balance sum should be paid without interest over a period of 4 years in equal monthly installments which will be determined by the respondent licensee within two weeks of communication of this order. Upon payment of the original estimate of Rs.37,215/- the electricity connection will be supplied to the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of such payment. In default of payment of two installments or the final instalment the respondent licensee will be at liberty to disconnect electricity supply. The first installment will fall due in the month following the date of supplying electricity connection. Each installment should be paid by the seventh of the month. The writ application is thus partly allowed. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.