Pawan Enterprises vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others

As prayed for the counsel for the appellant is permitted to make amendment in the cause title of the appeal and mention ''Jharkhand'' in place of ''Bihar'' in the name of the Electricity Board, just now.

This appeal has been filed by the consumer against the order dated 24.1.2001, passed by the learned single Judge, in CWJC No. 118 of 2001, whereby the decision dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure 14) of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur, was not interfered with and the writ-application was dismissed.

Admittedly, the appellant is LTIS consumer of the Electricity Board and situated at, Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur. In the year 1991, the appellant took electrical connection for contract load of 25 HP which was connected with 63 KVA transformer, which was subsequently enhanced to 50 HP.

In the year 1995, the appellant desired to expand its activities and applied for further expansion of contract load from 50 HP to 70 HP which was sanctioned on 9.10.1995 and agreement therefore was also executed on 28.2.1997.

According to the appellant after its contract load was enhanced to 70 HP the present 63 KVA transformer was required to be augmented by 100 KVA. As per the tariff notification. 1 HP load was equivalent to 0.933 KVA and, therefore, load of 70 HP over-loaded the existing 63 KAV transformer.

Since January 1996, the Electricity Board started charging energy, bill on the basis of 70 HP.

On 19.1.2000, the Anti-Power Theft Team of the Electricity Board inspected the premises of the appellant and found 103 HP connected load in the premises. The inspection report was prepared by the team on the spot, which was duly signed by the consumer. On the basis of the said report, the appellant''s electrical bills dated 2.2.2000 and 11.2.2000 (Annexures 9 and 9(A) were raised in terms of clause 16.9 IV. The said formula was applied in preparing the electrical bill after connected load of the appellant''s premises was found to be more than sanctioned load.

The appellant challenged those electrical bills in CWJC No. 880 of 2000 (R). By virtue of the interim order passed in the said writ-application, the application, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards those bills and by order dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure 12) the matter was remanded to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of Jamshedpur Area Board, where the appellant filed detailed representation (Annexure 13) on 19.4.2000, which was rejected by the detailed order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure 14) by the said authority. The appellant challenged the said decision of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer in CWJC No. 118 of 2001 in this Court, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 24.1.2001.

In the facts and circumstance of the case, in our view, two questions were required to be decided in the present case, namely, whether it was technically possible to draw 103 KVA load from a 63 KVA transformer and how much weight could have been given to the inspection report dated 19.1.2000 for applying clause 16.9 IV tariff formula for raising the electrical bills; and whether the two elected bills in question were required to be revised and re-issued.

We further find that the aforementioned questions cannot be effectively gone into and decided either in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in the present LPA. With consent of the parties, we, therefore, refer the aforementioned two questions to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for consideration and final decision, without being prejudiced by the order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer as well as the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.1.2001 declining to interfere therewith. We hope that the said Forum will decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the interim order dated 1st March 2001, in this appeal relating to the aforesaid two electrical bills shall continue.

In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the above observations/ directions.