Usha Choube vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Others

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—Heard Mr. M.M. Baner-jee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned cousnel for the respondent-Board.

In this writ application the petitioner inter alia prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to restore the electricity connection in the petitioner''s house which was disconnected on 17.12.1999 and also to give consumer number to the petitioner and to raise bills which has not been given since December, 1996.

Petitioner''s case is that she purchased one katha of land together with house in 1992 standing over a portion of plot No. 3325, khata No. 37 and after purchase she made some alteration and started living there. It is stated that she applied for electric connection which was finally provided by the respondent-Board in December, 1996 and since then petitioner started consuming electricity. However, respondent-Board did not raise any bill inspite of repeated requests and reminders. On 17.12.1999 there was an inspection and the authorities of the Board lodged FIR alleging inter alia that petitioner was committing theft of electrical energy and consequently supply of electricity was disconnected.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Board denying and disputing the facts stated in the writ petition. It is stated that petitioner was never allowed electrical connection by the Board. Respondents'' case is that when the application of the petitioner for electrical connection was processed and meter was installed, it was found that there was huge previous dues in the premises and as such the electrical line was not energised. On raid being conducted on 17.12.1999 it was found that petitioner was stealing electricity. The Board''s further case is that the owner of the premises from whom petitioner purchased a portion of house was a consumer having Consumer No. OSB-103, who was not paying electrical charges and there was huge dues against him. Accordingly, line was disconnected.

From perusal of the affidavits filed by the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels, it is clear that the case of the petitioner on the one hand is that the meter was installed in the premises of the petitioner and it was energised in December. 1996 and since then she has been consuming electricity but the respondent-Board did not raise any bill. On the other hand, the argument advanced by Mr. V.P. Singh, counsel for the Board is that although meter was installed but it was not energised For the reason that there was huge dues against the erstwhile owner of the premises.

In para 9 and 10 of the writ application, it is stated by the petitioner that she applied for electrical connection and deposited security money on 13.6.1999 and thereafter the meter was installed by the Board and the electric energy was supplied in the premises of the petitioner since Decem- ber, 1996. In reply to para 9 of the writ application it is stated in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that due to previous dues petitioner was not allowed electrical connection inspite of installation of meter, hence the consumer number was not allotted her. It is further stated that the petitioner then started illegally stealing electrical energy.

Having regard to the disputed question of fact as to whether petitioner was consuming electricity in a legal way or she was stealing electricity, it is not possible for this Court to decide the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, it is observed that if it is found that the petitioner was consuming electricity since December, 1996 after it was validly supplied by the respondent-Board, then petitioner shall be held liable to pay charges for the energy consumed in the premises since December, 1996. On the other hand, if it is found that petitioner was illegally consuming electricity then she will have to face consequences of stealing of the electricity and shall be liable to pay charges as per the tariff. The matter therefore needs consideration by the authorities of the Board.

For the reasons aforesaid, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondent No. 4, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Ranchi, who shall consider and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation. Respondent No. 4 thereafter shall act in accordance with the direction and observation made here in above.

Application disposed of.