Sujata Picture Palace vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Others

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

a) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi Electricity Supply Area (Respondent No. 2) by which he has dismissed the representation of the petitioner pursuant to order of the Hon''ble High Court dated 16.2.2000 passed in CWJC. No. 328 of 2000 (R) as the same is wholly illegal, without application of mind and contrary to various decisions and judgements of this Court and also contrary to the provisions of tariff.

b) For issuance of a writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the bill raised under Clause 16.9 of the tariff on the basis of order dated 7.6.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 which is for a sum of Rs. 4,74,324.94 as the same is not in accordance with formula laid down under Clause 16.9 of the tariff and is also violative of the recent judgement of the Hon''ble High Court wherein it has been held that fuel surcharge has to be levied only once in a bill under Clause 16.9 and also for quashing the DPS therein amounting to Rs. 19,558.84 since the earlier bill was quashed by this Hon''ble Court.

c) For quashing the letter dated 12.6.2000 issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division-I, Ranchi issued pursuant to order of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer dated 7.6.2000 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to complete all the formalities as required under the board''s rule for taking HT connection failing which the line of the petitioner would be disconnected without any further notice.

d) For issuance of a writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disconnect the electric line of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid impugned orders/ bills.

e) For issuance of an appropriate writ so as to hold that the concept of connected load be read as connected and utilized load at any point of time to make it consistent with the applicability clause, specially in cases of cinema halls which falls in CS tariff.

The facts in brief are set out as under:The petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is running cinema hall established since 1975. In the building there are two cinema halls in respect of which there is a common electric connection (meter) installed. The main cinema hall known as Sujata has 1217 seats and the other cinema halls situated on the second floor of the said building known as Mini Sujata has 179 seats and the category under which the electric connection was given was Commercial Service category. Initially there was manual meter but subsequently an electronic meter was installed in the premises of the petitioner on 4.9.1998.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the main cinema hall there are three projectors; two of 70 mm and one of 35 mm and there are 4 rectifiers in the main cinema hall which are connected with the projectors. It is submitted that only one projector and one rectifier runs at a time and after reel is changed second projector runs along with one rectifier and as such at any point of time only one projector is functioning. Similarly in the Mini Sujata there are two projectors of 35 mm and two rectifiers connected with the projectors and at any point of time in Mini Sujata also only one projector and one rectifier is being operated. There are two AC plants along with 4 Nos. of water pumps for the AC plant and at any point of time only one AC plant runs along with one water pump and both the AC plants do not run simultaneously.

An inspection was made in the premises of the petitioner on 28.1.2000 by a team of officials of the electricity board including Jr. Engineer (Supply), Main Road South, Assistant Electrical Engineer (Supply), Main Road, Electrical Executive Engineer (Supply), Urban-1 and Electrical Executive Engineer, APT, Board headquarters. At the time of inspection the petitioners were asked to put on AC plants to assess the load and projectors in both the cinema halls were also asked to be operated. As a matter of fact, inspection which started at 9.00 a.m. in the morning concluded only at 3.00 p.m. in the evening and by that time, the regular cinema shows had already started. After completing the survey an Inspection Report was prepared on the basis of all the machines installed in the premises of the petitioner. It is further submitted that from E & J of the Inspection Report that even in respect of the unconnected plugs their load were also taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the total wattage. As per the Inspection Report, reading was 69.5 KVA in the meter which as per the conversion factor in accordance with Clause 11 of the tariff is equivalent to 695/1025=55.60 KW which is within the sanctioned load.

Clause -11 of the electric tariff 1993 gives following conversion factors which are as follows:

i) Where necessary the following conversion factors shall be adopted.

a) 1 kilo watt (KW) = 1.25 KWA

b) 1 kilo watt (KW) = 1/0.746 horse power (HP)

c) 1 horse power (HP) = 0.933 kilo watt (KW)

On the basis of the inspection report the electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on 29.1.2000.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by disconnection and being aggrieved by the inspection report, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 328 of 2000 (R) and during course of hearing the respondent filed counter affidavit in which a bill under Clause 16.9 was annexed for a sum of Rs. 4,24,314.94, copy of which was never given to the petitioner. After hearing both the parties the Hon''ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition on 16.2.2000 directing the petitioner to file a representation/ petition before the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 was asked to dispose of the representation within a period of one week and pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of filing of the representation.

The bill under Clause 16.9 which was annexed as annexure-8 of the counter affidavit was quashed and the board was directed to restore the supply of electricity subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and on deposit of the same the electric line of the petitioner would be restored within 48 hours from the date and time of deposit.

Pursuant to the order of the Hon''ble High Court the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and the electric line of the petitioner was restored.

The petitioner also filed its representation on 23.2.2000 before the respondent No. 2. During the course of hearing, the petitioner raised objection that the details of the bill under Clause 16.9 has not been given and as such during the proceedings a copy of the detailed calculation was supplied to the petitioner.

Finally the report dated 20.5.2000 was considered and after hearing the parties the impugned order was pronounced on 7.6.2000 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide its letter dated 8.6.2000 by the Deputy General Manager-cum-Electrical Supdt. Engineer which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner was accordingly directed vide letter dated 12.06.2000 to take

H.T. connection.

The main contention raised by Sri M.S. Mittal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the team conducting load survey have taken into consideration all the machines installed in the premises irrespective of the fact that they all are not running at a time and load of power plug without load have been taken into consideration for adding total wattage. It has further been submitted that the concept of connected load be read as connected and utilized load at any point of time and in the instant case although the connected load may be more than the sanctioned load but the utilized load was within the sanctioned load. It has further been submitted that the petitioner being commercial service consumer and as such fixed charges cannot be levied and only unit charges can be levied. It has further been contended that the calculation of the respondent is totally in contravention to the method laid down under Clause 16.9 and the load of A.C. should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the total load.

The learned Senior counsel Sri V.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that if the connected load of such a consumer availing C.S.-III connection is found more than the sanctioned load then he has to execute an H.T. agreement. The respondents have denied that fuel charges were leveled thrice instead it has submitted that fuel charges were levelled only once. It has further been contended that the petitioner has taken connection not under the commercial service category but high tension category which has been converted into low tension connection to and the A.C. plant were found installed in connection the board power and the petitioner was found to be extracting power illegally at the rate of 159 k.w. against the sanctioned load of 60 k.w.

I have considered the rival submissions and the pleadings. The definition of connected load is provided u/s 14 (A) of Section 2 of the Finance and Account Code issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board which reads as under:

Connected load means the sum total of the installed capacities of all the energy consuming devices on the consumers, premises which can be operated simultaneously, excluding spare or standby capacity in the form of extra units or larger rating than necessary.

Thus, it will be clear on reading the aforesaid definition that the requirement for measuring the connected load is based on the total installed capacity of all the energy consuming device on the consumer premises which can be operated simultaneously.

Thus, irrespective of the fact whether any equipment is connected to the point at the time of inspection or not is of no consequence. The average wattage of each of these points has to be taken into consideration for applying the formula to calculate the total wattage. Even as per the circular dated 28.7.2001 it was clearly provided as under:

The assessment of connected load of domestic/nondomestic consumers shall be calculated on the basis of norms specified below:

(1-a) Details of load of all electrical appliances including lighting load shall be furnished with application form while applying for a new service connection for the purpose of calculation of connected load.

(1-b) The connected load of any consumer shall be the total of the following:

(i) Actual connected load found at the time of inspection.

(ii) Load of electrical appliances found during inspection but not connected with the supply system.

It is further relevant to refer a judgment reported in J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that if the Chief Engineer has issued notice to the consumer and considered all the relevant factors and also afforded opportunity to the consumer and heard him than it cannot be said that the order is unreasonable and perverse. There is no dispute about the fact that the actual load found to be connected and installed was 159 k.w. and the minimum load exceeds 60 k.w. the consumer has to necessarily execute a H.T. agreement. The respondents have rightly submitted in their counter affidavit at paragraph11 as under:

Therefore, the calculation would be as follows:

C (taken at 6 being a Factor equivalent to 6 months [120 {Fixed charge} (50 - Minimum monthly Consumption of 50 K.W.H. per K.W. - x1.32 (Rate) + 1.6034 (Fuel Surcharge) (159 [LD i.e. Load Detected] - L.S. (i.e. Sanctioned Load] x 3 =6(120 [50x1.32+1.6034]) (99) x 3 =6(120+146.17) (99) x 3 =6 x 266.70 x 99 x 3 =Rs.4,74,314.94/

The petitioner was found to be extracting the power illegally at the rate of 159 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 60 K.W. and therefore following the provisions of the tariff the bill has been raised to the extent of Rs. 4,74,314.94/-and there is nothing illegal in it. There is another aspect of the matter that the extraction of power through powerful system may cause the entire system of the Board to be thrown out of gear and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to reckon these points as part of the Board''s infrastructure and consequently include them in the report for assessment of load.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.