Judgment:
The Court : The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated September 8, 2010 is seeking an order quashing the bill dated August 16, 2010 (at p. 12) raised by CESC demanding, inter alia, a security deposit and a mandamus commanding CESC to reconnect her supply of electricity.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the bill raised by CESC for consumption of electricity. Consequently CESC disconnected her supply of electricity. She approached CESC for reconnection of her supply.
Under the circumstances, CESC raised the bill dated August 16, 2010. Ms. Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, submits as follows. The petitioner previously paid around Rs.1 lac as security deposit, and hence there was no valid reason to ask her to pay a further sum of around Rs.1.5 lac as security deposit. Mr. Rai, counsel for CESC, submits as follows.
The security deposit is revised from time to time keeping in mind the revision of tariff and the amount mentioned in the bill dated August 16, 2010 has been determined under the tariff rate existing at the date the bill was raised.
Previous deposit of the petitioner was found insufficient according to the statutory provisions. The amount of security deposit is likely to be increased in view of the developments taking place after August 16, 2010. I do not find any merit in the arugment that CESC determined the security deposit mentioned in the bill concerned without disclosing the details and giving the petitioner any opportunity to examine the validity of the determination.
The petitioner, of her own accord, requested CESC for reconnection of her supply, and accordingly CESC raised the bill. If she was aggrieved, she was free to ask CESC to clarify how the security deposit was determined. Instead of doing that she approached the Writ Court straight.
Hence she is not entitled to allege that she was not informed about the details of the determination. She is still free to approach CESC seeking the details of the determination. I find no reason to permit the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the bill by installments. No law entitles the petitioner to pay the amount in installments. It is another matter whether CESC will, of its own accord, allow the petitioner to pay any amount in installments.
The petitioner is free to approach CESC seeking installments and reconnection of her supply.
I only point out that if the petitioner pays the whole of the amount mentioned in an appropriate bill (most probably a fresh bill has to be raised by CESC), then CESC will incur a statutory obligation to reconnect her supply within 48 hours from the moment of the payment of the outstanding energy and other charge.
For these reasons, I am unable to give the petitioner any relief. The petition is dismissed.
No costs. Certified Xerox.