Full Judgment
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bajla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the Board.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, dated 19.10.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur, whereby, he has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in CWJC No. 880/ 2000(R).
3. The petitioner's case is that, in 1991, the petitioner took LTI connection for a load of 25 HP which was subsequently enhanced to 50 HP and electricity was being supplied through the transformer of 63 KVA. In 1995, the petitioner desired to expand the activities and applied for further expansion of loadof 20 HP making the total of 70 HP. The enhanced load was sanctioned by the respondent-Board, vide letter, dated 9.10.1995 on the condition that the power can be supplied only in case of high tension and/or low tension line. The petitioner was advised to deposit Rs. 8,000/-as security and execute an agreement for availing of the enhanced load up to 70 HP. It was contended by the petitioner that the existing 63 KVA transformer was required to be augmented by 100 KVA. It was alleged that in the month of January 1996, the petitioner was served the energy bill on 70 HP only on the basis of sanctioned load, although, the petitioner was being supplied power through the old 63 KVA transformer and even the agreement was not executed for enhanced load. The petitioner started making representation for replacement of the transformer but the same was not replaced. However, the petitioner ultimately executed the agreement on 28.2.1997 for enhanced load of 70 HP. It is contended that again the petitioner represented for augmentation of the capacity of transformer from 63 KVA to 103 HP In January 2000, the respondents inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that new machines were installed in the premises of the petitioner having different load and on that basis the respondents started raising bill on the basis of 103 HP. The petitioner challenged those bills by filing CWJC No. 880/2000(R). The main grievance of the petitioner in the writ application was that when the capacity of transformer is 63 KVA, the Board is not entitled to raise bill on the basis of 103 HP, which is illegal and arbitrary. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file detailed representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, who shall go through the representation and after giving opportunity of hearing take a final decision in accordance with law. Pursuant to that direction, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer considered the representation and after hearing the petitioner passed theimpugned order on 19.10.2000. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the sanctioned load was enhanced from 50 HP to 70 HP in 1995 for which the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Board on 28.2.1997 giving effect to the date of enhancement, i.e., 1.12.1995. It appears that the Anti-Power Theft Team headed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer and other officers of the Head Quarter inspected the premises of the petitioner on 10.1.2000 and found 103 HP connected load in the premises. The inspection report was prepared by the team and the respondent-Board was suggested to raise bill on the basis of inspection report in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff in course of argument Mr. Bajla has not disputed the fact that during inspection, the petitioner admitted that the connected load was 103 HP. The petitioner also signed on the inspection report. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer taking into consideration all these facts disposed of the representation holding that the Board was justified in raising bill on the basis of admitted load of 103 HP.
4. As noticed above, the petitioner during inspection admitted the fact that the load found in the premises, was 103 HP. Clause 16-9 of the Tariff provides, inter alia, that if the connected load is found more than the sanctioned load then the bill shall be raised on the basis of formula provided in the said clause. The Chief Engineer rightly held that the petitioner is liable to execute an agreement in respect of the connected load of 103 HP.
5. For the reason aforesaid, I do not find any illegality committed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer in taking a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner. This writ application has, therefore, no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
6. Writ application dismissed.