Tea Company v. Assam Power Distribution Company Limited

The petitioner Tea Company, by these writ petitions, have challenged the legalit y and validity of 4(four) bills raised by the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board, now Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), on the ground that those bills were raised in contravention of the provisions contained in Clause-1 5(e) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998. By bill dated 8th August, 200 3, pertaining to the period from 30th June, 2003 to 31st August, 2003, by bill d ated 9th September, 2003 for the period from 30th July, 2003 to 31st August, 200 3; by bill dated 10th October, 2003 for the period from 31st August, 2003 to 30t h September, 2003 and by bill dated 12th November, 2003 for the period from 30th September, 2003 to 31st October, 2003, the amount of Rs.15,73,062/-; Rs.1,72,16 4/-; Rs.3,86,980/- and Rs.4,35,805/- were charged towards the electricity consum ed. In the first bill dated 8th August, 2003, though the period was shown from 30th June, 2003 to 31st August, 2003, the same was, however, subsequently correc ted as from 30th June, 2003 to 31st July, 2003. I have heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents/Corpor ation. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner that though as per Clause-15(e) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, the quantity o f the energy consumed in respect of the meter being found incorrect, is required to be determined by taking into account the average consumption for the previou s 3(three) months preceding the meter going wrong or the next 3(three) months af ter correction of such meter, whichever is higher and accordingly bills are to b e raised and presented, but in the instant cases, all these bills were raised by taking into account not the average consumption of either the previous or subse quent 3(three) months but of different 3(three) years. It has, therefore, been submitted that there is infraction of the provisions contained in Clause-15(e) o f the Terms and Conditions of Supply. Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation that the provision of Clause-15(e) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply has been amended on 13th April, 2002 to the effect that in the event, any meter being found incorrect, which includes the stopped, slow or fast meter, the quantity of energy consumed is to be determined by taking the av erage consumption of the corresponding period of previous 3(three) years and bil led for preceding 6(six) months from the date of detection provided the connecte d load remain same. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned b ills were raised in terms of the new provision of Clause-15(e)(vi) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. It appears from the bill dated 8th August, 2003 that the bill for the average co nsumption for the period from 30th June, 2003 to 31st July, 2003 was raised taki ng into account the consumption of energy by the petitioner during the correspon ding months in the years 1998; 1999 and 2001. In respect of the bill dated 9th September, 2003, pertaining to the period from 31st July, 2003 to 31st August, 2 003, the unit consumed by the petitioner in the months of August and September d uring the years 1998, 1999 and 2001 were taken into account. In the bill dated 10th October, 2003 for the period from 31st August, 2003 to 30th September, 2003 , the unit consumed by the petitioner during the months of September and October in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 were taken into account. In respect of the bil l dated 11th December, 2003 pertaining to the period from 30th September, 2003 t o 31st October, 2003, the unit consumed by the petitioner in the months of Octob er and November in 2(two) years, namely 1998 and 1999, were taken into account w ith the note that during the period 2000, 2001 and 2002, the electrical connecti on provided to the petitioner was disconnected, without, however, indicating the exact duration of disconnection of the electricity connection provided to the p etitioner Company in those years. If there was disconnection during the years 2 000, 2001 and 2002, this Court fails to understand how in respect of the bills d ated 8th August, 2003 and 9th September, 2003, the average consumption pertainin g relevant period of the year 2001 could be taken into consideration while raisi ng the bills. Similarly in the bill dated 10th October, 2003, consumption by th e petitioner in the month of September and October, 2000 was taken into conside ration, though it is evident from the bill dated 12th November, 2003 that accord ing to the ASEB, the electrical connection provided to the petitioner was discon nected during the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. No explanation has been given in that respect by the respondents. It appears that the entire facts are not place d before this Court to record any specific finding in that regard. That apart, in the present writ petitions, the amendment made to the provision of Clause-15( e) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply has not been put to challenge. That being the position, the present writ petitions are disposed of directing th e Chief Engineer (Commercial), APDCL, Guwahati to raise the fresh bills pertaini ng to the aforesaid periods in terms of the amended provision of Clause- 15(e) o f the Terms and Conditions of Supply. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), APDCL, Gu wahati, before taking a decision relating to the bills to be raised in respect o f the aforesaid periods, shall hear the petitioner and also take into considerat ion all the relevant materials available on record. It is open to the petitione r to challenge the said bills including the amendment made to the Terms and Cond itions of Supply, if so aggrieved. The said exercise is directed to be complete d within a period of 2(two) months from today. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.