Patna High Court
Krishna Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.638 of 2024
======================================================
Krishna Kumar Sinha, Son of Shyam Bihari Lal, Resident of Mohalla - Sri
Ram Colony Road, P.S. Begampur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Electricity Board, Vidhut
Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Chairman Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Electric Supply
Circle, PESU (East) 3rd Floor, DCR-cum-MRT Building Road No. 1,
R.Block, Patna-1.
4. The Electric Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Patna City,
District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate
For the Company : Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, (GA-2)
Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, (AC to GA-2)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard Mr. Subodh Prasad, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha,
the learned Senior Advocate for the Electricity
Department. The State has been represented by Mr.
Akhileshwar Singh, the learned AC to GA-2.
2. The petitioner had initially come before
Patna High Court CWJC No.638 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
this Court with the main prayer of exempting him from
making payment of demand charges/fixed charges and
minimum charges as also re-connection charges for
renewing his disconnected electric connection. Later,
during the course of argument, he chose to challenge
the validity of Section 7.14(4) of the Bihar Electricity
Supply Code of 2007.
3. It appears that the petitioner ran an
aluminium factory and defaulted in paying the
electricity charges for several months. The electric
connection was disconnected for approximately two
years. On the assurance of the petitioner to deposit the
electricity charges, the stage was set for reconnecting
the electric connection. However, according to the
Supply Code, referred to above, for re-connection,
certain other charges are leviable by the Electricity
Department.
4. The relevant clause in the Supply Code
specifies that in case the service line has not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.638 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
removed by the licensee and a consumer desires to
revive his permanently disconnected connection, it may
be revived after payment of demand charges/fixed
charges and minimum charges and disconnection/re-
connection charges by the consumers for the period of
the disconnection.
5. It has been argued that such charges for
re-connection has been left wide open without there
being any parameter for deciding the quantum of such
charges.
6. The second contention on behalf of the
petitioner is that for including these provisions in the
Supply Code which has been framed under the
Electricity Act, 1950, a consultation with the consumers
was required, which in the present case, has not been
done.
7. Both these arguments are not tenable for
the reason that the charges which are asked from a
consumer for re-connection, especially when the wires
Patna High Court CWJC No.638 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
have not been permanently removed and the
disconnection has only been for the failure to pay the
electricity bill on time, the accusation that it leaves all
the space for the Electricity Department to fix such
rates arbitrarily, is not true factually.
8. No instance has been shown by the
petitioner to buttress this contention.
9. There is nothing in the Electricity Act or
the Supply Code, which could be demonstrated before
us, requiring a prior consultation for levying such
charges at the time of re-connection, and not doing so
would render such provision invalid.
10. According to the counter affidavit of the
Electricity Department, it appears that even the
installment fixed for making the final payment of the
outstanding bills has not been done by the petitioner. If
the petitioner would require re-connection, he has to
make payment against those bills as also the minimum
charges required for re-connection.
Patna High Court CWJC No.638 of 2024 dt.06-02-2025
11. There is no merit in this petition. The
petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Anushka/Rajesh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date
