JUDGMENT By Court - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the Electrical Executive Engineer (Annexure-6) by which punitive bill has been directed to be raised against the petitioner on the basis of inspection done on 19.5.2003 by adopting conversion factor of the tariff on the basis of KVA recorded in the meter as the maximum demand, which according to the petitioner is i3216napplicable to Low Tension(L.T.I.) consumer like the petitioner and is only applicable to High Tension(H.T.C.) Consumer. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the letter dated 21.5.2004 along with the bill annexed thereto, where under a demand has been raised under clause 16.9 on th3216e basis of 114 H.P. pursuant to the order dated 28.4.2004. Petitioner has also sought for direction upon the respondents to implement the order of Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum dated 16.5.2004 wherein an earlier bill raised under clause 16.9 was set aside directing the Board to raise current monthly bills on the basis of sanctioned load of 73 H.P. and excluding delayed payment surcharge on the original bill. Consequentially, petitioner has also sought for direction upon the respondents to raise bills on the basis of sanctioned load of 73 HP and 3216not beyond that. 3. The short fact of the case are that an inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 19.5.2003 wherein the meter was found working properly, but the maximum demand of 107.1 KVA was recorded in the said meter, which as per the inspe3216ction report(Annexure-1) was more than the sanctioned load i.e. 73 H.P. In that view of the matter, action was recommended to be taken as per the Tariff rules pursuant to the notice dated 5.2.2004(Annexure-2) issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer asking him to show cause against the raising of punitive bill under clause 16.9(A)(iv) of the tariff by converting KVA into H.P. Petitioner filed its show cause vide Annexure-3. Petitioner, interalia raised the contention that being L.T.I.S category consumer having connected load of 73 H.P. the respondent- Board could not have raised the demand on the basis of maximum demand indicator shown in the electronic meter as clause 16.9 does not apply to the petitioner, which is applicable to H.T. Consumer. Petitioner, interalia raised the contention that being L.T.I.S category consumer having connected load of 73 H.P. the respondent- Board could not have raised the demand on the basis of maximum demand indicator shown in the electronic meter as clause 16.9 does not apply to the petitioner, which is applicable to H.T. Consumer. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Consumer Redressal Forum in the case of Shubhash Kumar as also in the case of Weldon Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. It is further contended by the petitioner in his show cause that there was no allegation in the inspection report that petitioner was found to have a connected load beyond 73 H.P. 4. The Board also filed written statement (Annexure-4) taking stand that the meter was found in good working condition and recorded a correct reading showing maximum demand of 107 KVA for which the consumer should be charged to the extent of excess load than sanctioned load since the date of connection. According to the respondent's show cause the conversion of KVA into H.P. is calculated on the basis of 1H.P.= 0.933 KVA and consumer bill should be raised on the basis of clause 16.9(a) (iv) Tariff notification of 1993, as per 107KVA from the very date of connection. Thereafter, the impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 28.4.2004 was passed holding the consumer liable to pay punitive bill on the basis of inspection done on 19.5.2003 for a period of 180 days by adopting conversion factor provided in the tariff on account of the recent KVA recorded in the meter relating with the power factor and the drawl of excess current from the Board's System making the consumer liable to pay the bill compensating loss caused to the Board due to the higher drawl of current. It was also observed in the impugned order that consumer is required to maintain power factor not below 0.85. 5. Pursuant to the passing of the impugned order bills were raised and punitive bills of Rs. 4,02,907/- vide Annexure-9 was issued against the petitioner. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the forum as contained in Annexure-5 dated 19.2.2004 in the case of Shubhash Kumar Vrs. J.S.E.B & others to support his contention that bills raised under clause 16.9(A)(iv) of the said L.T.I.S consumer on the basis of maximum demand of electronic meter was not proper. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the forum as contained in Annexure-5 dated 19.2.2004 in the case of Shubhash Kumar Vrs. J.S.E.B & others to support his contention that bills raised under clause 16.9(A)(iv) of the said L.T.I.S consumer on the basis of maximum demand of electronic meter was not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the findings of the forum to support that in the case of L.T.I.S consumer the Board is required to find the actual / connected load of installed equipment and devices while electronic meter is primarily meant for recording the energy consumed and not for computing the maximum demand although it has additional facility for the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by the Forum(Annexure-10) in the case of the petitioner- establishment itself dated 14.5.2004 wherein also the bill was raised under clause 16.9 of the tariff on the basis of the inspection of his premises by showing connected load of 85.77 H.P. Petitioner, in the said circumstances had preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1875 of 2000(R) wherein after hearing the parties at length the impugned bill was set aside and the General Manager cum Chief Engineer was directed to hear the petitioner and pass a detailed order but the General Manager failed to pass reasoned order for the next 3 years after filing of the representation and petitioner moved the forum in Case No. 84 of 2003. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had moved the forum for quashing the bill for the month of July 2003 to the extent of it showed arrears of Rs. 2,77,288/- which included the amount of bill of Rs. 4O,014 of the delayed payment surcharge there upon till date which had been quashed by the High Court earlier. It had also sought for deduction of entire amount of delayed payment surcharge. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the forum heard the parties at length on specific question that whether the respondent- Board is justified in raising bill under clause 16.9 and whether the petitioner was liable to pay the same and D.P.S over such bills. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the forum heard the parties at length on specific question that whether the respondent- Board is justified in raising bill under clause 16.9 and whether the petitioner was liable to pay the same and D.P.S over such bills. The Forum, thereafter, proceeded to hold that the punitive impugned bill raised by the respondent on the basis of the inspection report dated 13.6.2000 was quashed by the High Court and therefore, no DPS can be levied on such bill which has lost its existence. The forum has directed the respondents to raise the bills in accordance with the sanctioned load as per the tariff and petitioner will make regular payment of monthly energy bill, failing which the respondent- Board will take action as per the provision of law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent- Board had filed their counter affidavit in November, 2009 and another counter affidavit had been filed in June 2012. Counsel for the respondent has submitted specifically relying upon the statement made in para 6,11,16,34 of the counter affidavit that during the course of first inspection on 13.6.2000 in the petitioner's premises, being L.T.I.S consumer of having sanctioned load of 73 H.P, it was found that he was availing 86 H.P. which is more than sanctioned load and punitive bill under clause 16.9(A)(IV)of the Tariff order of 1993 was raised. It is further stated that during the inspection conducted on 19.5.2003 the maximum demand was found to be recorded 107 KVA, which as per the conversion factor equals to 114 H.P. The petitioner also does not dispute the inspection report in which the maximum demand was so recorded. 8. It is further submitted that the electronic meter is installed to measure correct reading with full accuracy and function of the demand meter is to record the maximum load availed by the consumer for all purposes. The respondent- Board filed the supplementary counter affidavit in which the notification issued by the J.S.E.B contained in memo no. 5058-59 dated 29.8.2002 was brought on record. The respondent- Board filed the supplementary counter affidavit in which the notification issued by the J.S.E.B contained in memo no. 5058-59 dated 29.8.2002 was brought on record. It is submitted on the basis of the said notification that on installation of electronic meter the concept of maximum connected load would be replaced by maximum demand load in relation to the consumer, who had electronic meter in their premises like that of the petitioner and as such the impugned bill has been raised on the basis of the maximum demand recorded by the electronic meter. Respondents by referring to clause 16.9(A)(iv) of 1993 tariff , which is quoted herein below has submitted that when connected load is more than sanctioned load in case of category of L.T.I.S consumer except domestic service, Assessment charge is to be made on the basis of formula (Assessment Charge:- Rs. C x M (LD -LS) x 3), where L.D. is equal to load detected in the BHP at the time of inspection. 9. Counsel for the respondent submits that the load detected under the meaning of expression 'LD' would be connected load of L.T.I.S consumer as detected during the course of inspection by maximum demand recorded in the electronic meter. It is submitted that the electronic meter is pilferage proof and reading recorded in it are accurate which cannot be questioned by the petitioner, as such the reading showing 107 KVA during inspection on 19.5.2003 on the basis of conversion amounts to 114 H.P. over which petitioner is liable to pay as per clause 16.9.(A)(iv), which is quoted herein below:- “16.9(A) DETECTION OF UNAUTHORIZED LOAD: If at any time the consumer is found exceeding the contracted load without specific permission of the Board, the Board may without prejudice to its other rights under the agreement or under the provisions of the Electricity Act, estimate the value of the electrical energy, so extracted, consumed or used shall be calculated as below and may also disconnect the supply without notice:” “16.9(A)(IV): When connected load is more than the sanctioned load in case of all categories LT connections except Domestic Service. Assessment Charge:-Rs. C x M(LD-LS) x3 Where M= Minimum consumption guarantee charge per BHP per month as applicable in the tariff schedule. Assessment Charge:-Rs. C x M(LD-LS) x3 Where M= Minimum consumption guarantee charge per BHP per month as applicable in the tariff schedule. LD= is the load detected in BHP at the time of inspection LS= is the load sanctioned to the consumer in BHP C= this factor be taken equivalent to six months or no. of months or part thereof elapsed from the date of connection / installation whichever is less”. 10. Counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) & Another Vrs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in 2012(2) SCC 108 to support his contention that any case of withdrawal of electricity in unauthorized manner makes the consumer liable for payment of the same under the agreement of the tariff fixed by the Board. It is also submitted that the judgment of the forum relied upon by the petitioner are in different fact situation wherein one of the case the meter was burnt in the case of Subhash Kr. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the supplementary counter affidavit has stated by relying upon the Tariff notice issued by the Jharkhand State Regulatory Commission for L.T.I.S consumer in Annexure-17 to submit that the said notification has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2004. Moreover according to the petitioner under clause 5(b) of the said tariff notice, the maximum demand recorded in a year will be treated as contract load for that year for the LTIS consumer who opts for maximum demand meters. This option shall be availed only after execution of the agreement with the Board for this option of Tariff. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the issue involves in this case relates to the period prior the coming into force of 2004 Tariff and even in the said Tariff or under the notification of 2002 (Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit relied upon by the respondent) record of maximum demand of electronic meter cannot be made basis for raising punitive bill in relation to the L.T.I.S consumer as it is contrary to the Tariff notification of 1993. The concept of maximum demand is only applicable to the case of H.T. Consumer. The concept of maximum demand is only applicable to the case of H.T. Consumer. So far as the L.T.I. Consumer is concerned, he is liable to pay on the actual units consumed irrespective of the demand recorded in the meter. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is governed by the 1993 Tariff Notification and the judgment relied on by the respondent has been rendered in the context of the Electricity Act, 2003 12. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned order and relevant materials brought on record. On the undisputed fact it is clear that inspection was held in the premises of the petitioner on 19.5.2003 when the maximum demand in the electronic meter was found to have recorded 107 KVA. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner being the L.T.I.S consumer of the respondent- Board has sanctioned load of 73 HP. Petitioner- consumer on the date of inspection i.e. on 19.5.2003 was governed by the 1993 tariff of the Board. The subsequent tariff notification of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission was made effective from 1.1.2004 wherein the concept of maximum demand load was introduced in the tariff regulation in respect of L.T.I.S consumer. The relevant provision of the 2004 tariff, which are contained at Annexure-17 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner stipulates that the maximum demand recorded in a year will be treated as contract load for that year for the consumer who opts for maximum demand meter. This option shall be availed only after installation of maximum demand meters and executing an agreement with the board for this option of tariff. 13. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Forum in the case of Shubhash Kumar (Annexure-5) in support of its contention that clause 16.9(A)(IV) and the concept of the maximum demand indicator shown in the electronic meter does not apply to the present consumer being the L.T.I.s consumer. 14. The respondent Board has on the basis of notification dated 29.8.002 of the Board(Annexure-A) to the supplementary counter affidavit, clause 4 thereof has submitted that the concept of maximum connected load would be converted to maximum demand load and those units which want to avail the said facility has to install the electronic meter at their own cost. 14. The respondent Board has on the basis of notification dated 29.8.002 of the Board(Annexure-A) to the supplementary counter affidavit, clause 4 thereof has submitted that the concept of maximum connected load would be converted to maximum demand load and those units which want to avail the said facility has to install the electronic meter at their own cost. In the present case it appears that the electronic meter was installed in the premises of the petitioner on 1.10.2002, which was inspected on 19.5.2003 by the respondent's officials. However, it appears that no fresh agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the respondent- Board subjecting itself to the concept of maximum demand load. The punitive provisions of clause 16.9(A)(IV) of the tariff of 1993 has been relied upon by the respondent- Board to raise the punitive bills treating the connected load as 114 H.P. taking conversion factor on the basis of 1HP =0.933 KVA. Since the electronic meter records maximum demand which has been found to be 107 KVA on the date of inspection, equivalent thereof has been taken to be 114 HP on the basis of aforesaid conversion factor under the relevant clause of 16.9(A)(IV) of the tariff notification, which has been quoted supra. The punitive bills impugned herein has been raised for the period of 180 days prior to the date of inspection. The respondent- Electrical Executive Engineer has overruled the contention of the Assistant Electrical Engineer to charge punitive bill from the date of connection while relying upon 16.9(A)(IV) vide Annexure-6 dated 28.4.2004. The tariff notification of 1993, under clause 16.9(A)(IV) which has been relied upon by the respondent and has been referred herein above provides for assessment charge when connected load is more than the sanctioned load in case of all categories of L.T.I.S consumer except domestic service by the formula i.e. Assessment Charge:-Rs. C x M(LD-LS) x3, which has already been quoted herein above in which LD= is the load detected in BHP at the time of inspection and LS= is the load sanctioned to the consumer in BHP. When the tariff notification of 1993 had been brought into force the concept of electronic meter recording maximum demand in respect of LTIS consumer had not taken birth. When the tariff notification of 1993 had been brought into force the concept of electronic meter recording maximum demand in respect of LTIS consumer had not taken birth. The electronic meter is a scientific device which has subsequently come and as it appears consumers were given option to install the same at their own cost to avail of the facility of maximum demand instead of maximum connected load. Under clause 16.9(A)(IV) in case the connected load was detected at the time of inspection more than the sanctioned load a presumption was raised by taking into factor “C” for raising punitive bill as per the formula stated herein above by presuming that the consumer had been indulging in excess drawal of energy beyond the sanctioned load for the period equivalent to 6 months or number of months or part thereof elapsed from the date of connection / installation, which ever is less. 15. The punitive provision in any statute or tariff such as the 1993 tariff, which is in context in the present case is to be construed strictly. In the present case the electronic meter of the consumer appears to be installed for a period even beyond 6 months and the respondent- Board through its officials are obliged to record the meter reading at regular intervals which reflects the energy consumed in terms of unit and also the maximum demand reflected in the KVA recorded in the electronic meter. It is also apparent that during the course of inspection the respondent-Officials of the Board did not verify the connected load installed in the premises of the consumer. Moreover, there is no fresh agreement entered by the petitioner with the respondent- Board after installation of the electronic meter to subject itself to the concept of maximum demand load instead of connected load applicable to the L.T.I.S. Consumer under the 1993 tariff. The 2004 tariff issued by the State Regulatory Commission makes provision for the same which has been brought on record by way of annexure-17 to the rejoinder of the petitioner. However, 2004 tariff is not applicable to the present case, since the inspection having been made on 19.5.2003 itself. 16. The 2004 tariff issued by the State Regulatory Commission makes provision for the same which has been brought on record by way of annexure-17 to the rejoinder of the petitioner. However, 2004 tariff is not applicable to the present case, since the inspection having been made on 19.5.2003 itself. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussion made herein above the impugned order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the Electrical Executive Engineer (Annexure-6) cannot be sustained in law and accordingly quashed and for the same reason the punitive bill raised against the petitioner on the basis of inspection done on 19.5.2003 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is also, quashed. 17. The consumer- petitioner shall however, be liable to pay bills for the particular period in which he was found to have drawn excess energy as per the tariff notification of 1993 which were applicable for the period in question and Respondent- Board would, therefore, proceed to raise bills against the petitioner- consumer in accordance with law for the period in question. 18. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.