Singla Trading And Leasing Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1992 Latest Caselaw 147 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the supplementary bill raised by the respondent on account of load violation charges as per the Tariff for the relevant period of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ("DESU' for short). The respondent has been sued through the General Manager, DESU. The petitioner seeks to have this bill quashed and a further restraint on the respondent from disconnecting the power supply of the petitioner on account of non-payment of the impugned bill. The bill is for the amount of Rs. 5,41,368.05 and the petitioner was asked to make payment of this bill by 4 February, 1991 otherwise 3% surcharge of the amount of the bill was to be levied for each 30 days successive period or part thereof until the amount in full was paid by this date.

(2) The petitioner filed this petition on 24 January, 1991. On the following day when the matter was listed before a Bench of this Court notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time operation of the impugned bill for the recovery of load violation charges was stayed. This stay is continuing till this day. The respondent filed its answer to show-cause notice on 29 April, 1991 and thereafter the matter was being adjourned on the request of the petitioner and it was only on 14 January, 1992 that the petitioner filed its rejoinder. The petitioner contended that he was engaged in the manufacture and sale of alloy steel castings and had a sanctioned load of 1263 Kw (equivalent to 1501 KVA) for its factory. It said that it received bills for consumption of electricity for the months of September, October and November, 1990 which bills were paid as per the orders of this Court in some other proceedings instituted by the petitioner challenging those bills. It said those bills clearly showed that the billing demand had been taken as 1501 Kva and on which the minimum consumption guarantee charges had been levied at the rate of Rs. 340.00 per KVA. It said that this meant that the committed and connected load of the petitioner was within the sanctioned load as there was no allegation of any nature whatsoever that the petitioner had committed any load violation during the period covered by the bills for the months of September, October and November, 1990. Petitioner, therefore, contended that no load violation charges could ever have been levied and when it received the impugned bill levying 30ø/o load violation charges for these very three months it was completely taken by surprise.

(3) We find the petitioner misled the Court as he did not bring to the notice of this Court that on inspection made on 10 August, 1990 at the premises of the petitioner it was found that the connected load was of 1878 Kw against the sanctioned load of 1275 KW. This inspection was carried out by the DESU's joint team consisting of high senior officers. This joint inspection report the petitioner filed only with its rejoinder. It clearly mentions that Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Director of the petitioner, refused to sign the joint inspection report and this joint inspection report was sent to the petitioner thereafter by post which he received on 3 December, 1990. Yet this joint inspection report was neither filed with the petition nor any reference made in the petition. This joint inspection report is signed by as many as 14 officers of the Desu and was prepared at the spot. In M/s. Matsaya Metal Udyog (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU), 144 (1991) Delhi Law Times 13] a Bench of this Court while dealing with the question of levying of load violation charges observed as under :- "THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that load violation charges arc again in the nature of penalty and, therefore, the same cannot be levied unless a proper show-cause notice is issued to the consumers and have an opportunity to answer the same. In some of the cases it was brought to our notice that in fact the equipment as installed was the same which was provided in the agreement but the respondents on inspection changed their mind and came to the conclusion that the equipment was capable of taking extra load and as such load violation charges were imposed. However, in such cases, it was conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a proper show cause notice will have to be issued and the matter will have to be verified before levying the said charged. In other cases the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that the inspection reports clearly indicate the additional equipment and as such it was not necessary to serve any further notice particularly when the report had not been challenged by the consumer when a copy of the report duly signed by the consumer was handed over to the consumer. It is true that ordinarily it is open to the consumer to represent against the inspection report and raise his defense but it cannot be said that in all cases the inspection report is to be treated as final. However, wherever the inspection report has been challenged by the consumer and/or it has been brought to the notice of the respondents that the excess load has since been removed and has deposited the inspection fee, it will be incumbent upon the respondents to carry out fresh inspection in presence of the consumer."

(4) In the present case, first, when the petitioner refused to sign the joint inspection report be was clearly put to notice that he was having excess load, and again he received copy of the joint inspection report on 3 December, 1990. If he had any grievance he would have immediately objected to the same and would have asked the Desu for reinspection. He did neither and instead rushed to this Court and obtained stay order. We disapprove the conduct of the petitioner.

(5) In the rejoinder now the petitioner says that the Desu has wrongly, taken into consideration the load of the furnace as 1800 Kw as against 1200 KW. The petitioner has filed the purchase invoice of the furnace and has also referred to two earlier inspections by the Desu on 22 July, 1987 and 11 October, 1989 where the recorded load of the furnace was mentioned as 1200 KW. These points which raise dispute of facts the petitioner could, as noted above, well have taken with the DESU.

(6) The respondent has submitted that load violation charges in the bills of September, 1990 to November, 1990 could not be charged due to late receipt of the inspection report from the XEN(Enf.) and as such supplementary demand of load violation charges was raised separately which was payable by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the approved Lip (Large Industrial Power) Tariff Schedule for the year 1990-1991.

(7) We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and would dismiss the same. Interim order made earlier is vacated. We would certainly have directed the petitioner to pay interest on the amount of supplementary bill which was stayed, but since the bill levies the surcharge as mentioned therein for default in payment of bill, we say no more on the payment of interest. We will grant 15 days time to the petitioner to make the payment of the supplementary bill with surcharge as levied thereon and till then the electric supply to the premises of the petitioner shall not be disconnected on that account.