@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Aftab Alam, J.@mdashThere are altogether ten Petitioners in these three writ petitions. They seek the same relief in the same set of facts arid circumstances. Hence, these three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Some of the Petitioners are running lathe shops and some welding shops at Nawadah. Each of the Petitioners draws electricity under a low tension connection for running his motor(s)/machine(s). The sanctioned load pf the Petitioners varies from 2 to 6 horse powers. In the month of October, 1997 the Petitioners were given bills showing large amounts as arrears. The amounts of arrears in the bills given to the Petitioners range between Rs. 41,320/- (in respect of Mithlesh Prasad, Petitioner No. 4 in CWJC No. 2011/1998) to over a lac of rupees in case of some of the other Petitioners. From the bills given to the Petitioners it only appeared that the demand was raised on the basis of some objection raised by the audit. The Petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking to challenge those bills and praying for a direction to the Board not to take any coercive measures for the realisation of the amounts shown as arrears in those bills.
3. The nature of the demands shown as arrear dues has been spelled out in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Electricity Board. A reference is made to a provision in the 1993 (current) tariff which provides that in case of a welding set with the name plate missing, its rating will be deemed to be 15 H.P. and billing would be made accordingly. It is further stated that though the sanctioned loads of the Petitioners were between 2 to 6 H.Ps. almost all of them (and some others who are not before this Court) were using welding sets with no name plates and an objection was raised by the audit that brings were being done on the basis of the sanctioned load of each of the consumer which was much lower than the rates provided in the tariff for such cases. It is further stated that on the basis of the audit objection the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Nawadan by his letter dated 13.2.1996 asked the Junior Electrical Engineer to inspect the premises of the consumers running welding sets and to submit his report regarding the load position, condition of the meter, load of the welding set with (sic) number and make etc. According the Board, the Junior Electrical Engineer held inspection of the premises of the Petitioners and other consumers on 17.1996 and 3.7.1996 and submitted his report copies of which are made an-nexures to the counter affidavit. The inspection report dated 3.7.1996 has a list of 31 consumers; against the name of each of the consumers there are two columns, one for his consumer number and the other for remark. In the remark column, it is simply stated whether the welding set of the consumer had a name plate or it was without a name plate, From this report, it appears that the welding sets in the shops of ten Petitioners (and in the shops of all other consumers with the exception of one or two) were without name plates. It is, however, significant to note that this inspection report in respect of 31 consumers does not bear the signature of a single consumer and it does not appear from it that the inspection was held in presence of any of the consumers or their representatives.
4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of the inspector) report submitted by the Junior Electrical Engineer notices were issued to all he consumers including the Petitioners. By the notice, the consumers were intimated that the welding sets they were using had been found to be without name plates and they were, therefore, liable to be billed @ 15 H.P. According to the counter affidavit none of the consumers, including the Petitioners gave any reply to the notices issued by the Board. No copy of the notice is, however, brought on the record in support of the averments.
5. The counter affidavit also encloses chart (Annexure ''A'' to the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 2005/1998) giving a Retailed break up of the amount shown as arrear dues in case of all the consumers including the ten Petitioners. From this chart, it appears that all the consumers were billed @ 15 H.P. regardless of their sanctioned load being between 2 to 6 H.Ps. It further appears that the revised demands in the impugned bills were made from May 1988 (or the date of the connection being given to the consumer whichever being earlier) to December, 1995.
6. It is noted above that according to the Board the inspection was made by the Junior Electrical Engineer on July 3, 1996. A question thus arose how the revised demands for the period beginning from May, 1988 could be justified on that basis. In that regard, Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Counsel for the Board submitted that earlier in the year, 1986 also premises/shops of the low tension consumers at Nawadah was inspected by a team comprising of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, C.I.D. (Special Cell), Patna, Dy. S.P., C.I.D. Special Cell, Patna, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Nawadah and the Junior Electrical Engineer, Nawadah and in course of that inspection it was found that the connected loads of the consumers was much higher than their sanctioned loads. Mr. Jha, however, admitted that no records of that inspection were now available with the Board and he was able to lay his hands only on inspection reports in respect of two consumers, namely, Mahendra Prasad (Petitioner No. 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 2011/1998) and Peyare Mistry (Petitioner No. 3 in CWJC No. 2041/1998). The two inspection reports are respectively at Annexure-G in the counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 2011/1998 and Annexure-E in the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 2041/1998. From the inspection report of Mahendra Prasad ft appears that against a sanctioned load of 4 H.P. he was found to have a connected load of 13 H.P. and from the inspection report, of Peyare Mistry it appears that against a sanctioned load of 6 H.P. he was found to have a connected load of 13 H.P. Mr. Jha, however, admitted that except these two, no other reports concerning the other consumers, including the other Petitioners were now available in the Board''s office and it is, therefore, not known what was the position in respect of the other Petitioners. Mr. Jha, in support of the Board''s claim that an inspection was held in the year, 1986 sought to rely upon a representation filed by some of the consumers at that time a copy whereof has been brought on, the record as an an-nexure to the writ petition. That representation does not at all give any idea as to what was the position found in the shops of the other eight Petitioners.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I find if difficult to sustain the revised demands raised by the Board against the Petitioners on the basis of the inspections said to have been made in the year, 1986 and then in the years, 1996. As noted above, there are no inspection reports relating to eight Petitioners before this Court in respect of the 1986 inspection the inspection report of the year, 1996 does not inspire any confidence as it does not bear the signatures of the consumers. It does not even state that the consumers or their representatives refused to put their signatures oh the inspection report and it does not appear from that report that the inspection was held in presence of the consumers or their representatives. The long period to which the revised demands relate can also not be justified on the basis of two inspections said to have been held at the gap of ten years.
8. For the aforesaid reasons I hold that the demands of arrear dues as contained in the impugned bills were quite unreasonable, unjustified and invalid. Those demands are accordingly set aside and the Board is directed not to interfere with the supply of electricity to the Petitioners for non-payment of the Petitioners for non-payment of the impugned demands. It will be, however, open to the Board to have fresh inspection made, in accordance with law, of the low tension connection consumers at Nawadah and to take appropriate action on the basis of the inspection reports.
In the result, these writ petitions are allowed but with not order as to costs.
