H.P. Labellette India (India) ... vs Delhi Vidyut Board
2005 Latest Caselaw 1143 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Prayer made in the petition is to quash the bills raised by Delhi Vidyut Board (Annexure IX A) and to issue a mandamus to it to treat the petitioner as a consumer falling under SIP category.

2. Backdrop of the facts which have led to the filing of the petition is that the petitioner obtained an electricity connection from the respondent having a sanctioned load of 87.9 KW.

3. As per tariff, loads up to 100 KW are treated as small industrial power (SIP) and loads above 100 KW are treated as the large industrial power (LIP). Tariff applicable is higher in the later category.

4. According to the petitioner, it was desirous of expanding. It needed more power. In December,1995 it applied to the respondent for additional load by increasing the same by another 61 KW. On 25.1.1996, petitioner deposited Rs. 89,736/- with the respondent as the said sum was worked out by the respondent for changing the existing meter and replacing the same with a meter of higher rating as also for changing the existing cable leading from the main supply line to the premises of the petitioner as the enhanced load required a heavier cable.

5. Respondent took no action till 22.4.1998. On said date, the existing meter was replaced with an LT MDI meter. Service line i.e. cable from the main lines till the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was not changed. Petitioner wrote a letter on 18.1.1999 informing the respondent as under :

'The Executive Engineer,

Delhi Nizamuddin,

New Delhi

Dear Sir,

We had got the declared load increased by 60.4 KW (total load 148.9 industrial + 9.1 industrial policy) in January,1996.

Due to dull market conditions and lack of orders, we have closed one set of machines and thereby disconnecting 61 KW load.

As such, we request you to kindly reduce/cancel my declared load by 61 KW and continue my old total load of 97.6 KW (industrial 88.5 KW + 9.1 KW lighting).

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

for HP LABELLETTE (INDIA)PVT LTD.

sd/-

MANAGING DIRECtor'

6. All along this period, respondent raised bills on the petitioner as per tariff applicable in the SIP category. Bills were based on the consumption of electricity as recorded in the meter installed by the respondent at the premises of the petitioner. In February,1999, the petitioner received a bill in the sum of Rs. 5,27,505/- from the Bulk Supply Department of the respondent. Petitioner did not pay. On 9.3.1999, a notice was issued to the petitioner that if the bill was not paid, electricity supply would be disconnected. Petitioner claims to have paid the bill under protest. Petitioner claims to have taken up the matter with the officers of the respondent to clarify on the issue. In September,1999 petitioner was served with a bill in the sum of Rs. 33,45,905.70 charging the petitioner electricity charges for the period January,1996 to February,1999 as per LIP tariff.

7. Since no redressal was fourth coming to the petitioner and instead a bill raising a demand for 3 years was raised, present petition was filed.

8. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the total load installed by the petitioner was 158 KW. Accordingly, respondent justifies the bill which has been raised.

9. Shri Arvind Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during arguments conceeded that the petitioner would be ready and willing to pay as per tariff applicable in LIP category from 22.4.1998 till 18.1.1999. This was due to the fact that on 22.4.1998, in response to the request of the petitioner, a higher capacity meter was installed and on 18.1.1999, petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent requesting that the load may be reduced. For the period post 18.1.1999, counsel argued that there was no reason for the respondent not to come and check the premises of the petitioner after they had received the letter dated 18.1.1999. For the period prior to 22.4.1998, counsel urged that having paid the requisite amount to DVB to enhance the load, DVB took no steps to either change the service line or replace the meter. Counsel urged that it was not the stand of DVB that the petitioner had tampered with the meter. Consumption of the electricity shows that for the period prior to 22.4.1998 and after 18.1.1999, electricity consumed is much below the normative consumption commensurate with a sanctioned load of 100 KW.

10. Per contra, Sh. Jayant Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that petitioner had applied under a scheme of DVB calling upon consumers who had installed a load much above the sanctioned load to declare the existing load and seek enhancement thereof. Counsel urged that the scheme of DVB was a beneficial scheme. Counsel urged that admittedly, petitioner declared a higher load when it applied for upgradation and deposited Rs. 89,736/- on 25.1.1996. Counsel urged that bills raised were as per tariff applicable in the LIP category.

11. Neither party has brought on record the application submitted by the petitioner in January,1996. It is, therefore, not clear whether the petitioner applied for enhancement of load or whether the petitioner declared that it was already using a enhanced load. Issue would accordingly be decided on the basis of documents filed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceeded that the petitioner would pay as per tariff applicable in LIP category from 22.4.1998 till 18.1.1999. Point to be decided is whether the petitioner has to pay the bills from January,1996 till 21.4.1998 and w.e.f. 19.1.1999 till November,1999.

13. It is not in dispute that on 18.1.1999 petitioner informed that it was closing one set of machines due to dull market conditions thereby disconnecting load of 61 KW. Admittedly, DVB took no action to verify whether the said letter correctly intimated the facts to DVB. DVB is clearly at fault in not carrying out an inspection after it received the letter dated 18.1.1999. I may, however, note that it appears that officers of DVB did an inspection for the reason on 5.4.1999 the A.E. Has recorded that existing load was 96 KW (page 32-33 of writ record).

14. Admittedly, it was the petitioner which sought enhancement of load. It was the petitioner which intimated that it does not require the enhanced load. There is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner.

15. It is accordingly held that the petitioner would not be liable to pay as per LIP category tariff post 18.1.1999.

16. For the period prior to 21.4.1998, as noted above, neither party has placed on record the application which was made by the petitioner. It is not clear whether the petitioner declared that it had enhanced load or whether the petitioner had applied for load enhancement.

17. One thing is clear from the facts brought on record. Having received Rs. 89,736/- on 25.1.1996, DVB neither changed the service line by enhancing the capacity of the feeder line nor installed the LT MDI meter. Meter was installed only on 22.41998, after a lapse of more than two years and three months.

18. Assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition that no irregularity was found in the running of the existing meter and the bills were raised on the actual consumption has not been denied by the respondent. Further, the assertion of the petitioner that Annexure VI to the writ petition is a chart showing the units consumed from February,1996 till March,1998 has also not been denied.

19. A perusal of Annexure VI shows that each month, consumption varied from 3390 units to a maximum of 8390 units. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that per 1 KW of sanctioned load, 200 units of electricity per month can be consumed. The billing pattern shows that the petitioner was consuming electricity much below a load of 100 KW.

20. Respondent are to blame for the mess. Neither did respondent carry out inspection in January,1996 nor did the respondent replace the existing cable or the existing meter.

21. Petition accordingly stands disposed of with a direction that as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner would be liable to pay electricity charges from 22.4.1998 till 18.1.1999 as per tariff applicable in LIP category. It is declared that for the period prior to 22.4.1998 and after 18.1.1999, petitioner would be liable to pay as per the meter reading applying the tariff applicable to SIP category. Mandamus is issued quashing the impugned demand. Directions are issued to the respondent to re-work the demand in terms of the present decision and after giving adjustment to the petitioner of the payments made for the period 22.4.1998 till 18.1.1999, fresh be raised as per the tariff applicable in the LIP category for the said period. Petitioner is granted four weeks time to clear the said bill.

22. No costs.