KAPIL KUMAR TAYAL vs GENERAL MANAGER, D.E.S.U.

THE petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Tayal Plastic Industries filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that M/s. Tayal Plastic Industries (hereafter called the industry) was granted a licence of 28 H.P. by the respondent in the year 1985 for running a plastic industry against the power connection No. K-6047 A- 2 granted in the name of the industry. THE appellant approached the respondent in June 1987 for regularisation of the said power connection in the name of the industry and also for releasing the additional load sanctioned by the respondent. THE grievance of the complainant is that at the time of regularisation of the said connection, the respondent imposed penalty retrospectively in the sum of Rs. 11,147.50 for the period 18.4.1980 to March 1989 which could not be done as the respondent cannot bill a consumer for accumulated arrears for more than six months. THE appellant further contends that in May, 1983 the respondent had taken a decision to impose a penalty of higher tariff and surcharge w.e.f. 16.2.1983, and that the said order was to come into force with immediate effect. THE appellant, however, contends that he could not be saddled with penalty w.e.f. 18.4.1980 to 15.2.1983. Further, that before imposing the penalty a notice was required to be issued, which was not done by the respondent

ACCORDING to the appellant he was issued an adhoc licence on 18.7.1985 and as per the office order No. Co-II/Comml-26/85-86/4 dated 15.5.1985, higher tariff and surcharge was recoverable only for a period of three years w.e.f. 18.7.1985. On the above allegations the appellant prays that the sum of Rs. 11,147.50, over charged by the respondent be refunded with interest @ 18% P.M. The appellant at the time of regularisation of connection deposited a sum of Rs. 11,900/- towards security deposit in addition to the security already deposited with the respondent. The appellant also claims interest on the security deposit. The respondent in their reply resisted the claim of the appellant conterding that the existing D.P. connection No. 4ZK-6047A2 was transferred and regularised in favour of Shri K.K. Tayal for the load of 2.4 K.W.(IP) w.e.f. 15/18 April 1980 for trade of oil expeller but soon after the regularisation the consumer started misusing the connection for manufacturing of plastic and PVC goods, which resulted in frequent burning/replacement of meter, and that in cases of misuser as was done by the appellant, the penalities of H.D. and 25% of surcharge are recoverable from the date of its regularisation/registration. According to the respondent the premises of the appellant were inspected on various dates and every time the connection was found misused for manufacturing plastic and PVC goods and excess connected load was found at site. Further that this fact is admitted by the appellant in his letters dated 11.3.83 and 11.5.83. The respondents submit that the appellant had admitted the misuser for manufacturing the PVC footwear with connected load of 2.0 K.W. and requested to include the penalities applicable under the rules. The municipal licence in favour of the appellant was issued by the M.C.D. on 17.7.85. The respondents'' case is that it was under these circumstances a bill for Rs. 11,147.50 was issued. In the premises it is contended that the appellant is not entitled to any refund.

We have heard the parties. The appellant vehemently contends that his case is covered within the ambit of circular Dt. 15.5.85, annexure ''C filed with the appeal. That being so, the appellant submits that recovery in his case was to be limited to three years from the date of issue of the adhoc licence. We express our inability to accept this submission. It may be noted here that the appellant was allowed connection for oil expeller for the convenience of the residents of the area and as the appellant has misused the licence, the provisions of the circular, annexure/''C'' to appeal are not applicable. The respondents in their reply to the complaint (page 17 of the District Forum''s file) have categorically averred that the existing D.P. connection No. 4ZK 604782 was transferred and regularised in favour of Shri K.K. Tayal for the load of 2.0 K.W. (I.P.) with effect from 15/18.4.80 for oil expeller (Tel Ghani) but soon after the regularisation the appellant started misusing the connection for manufacturing of plastic and P.V.C. goods and excess load was also connected which resulted in burning/replacement of meter, the details whereof have been noted in the reply. The appellant was issued a show cause notice to which there is no traverse. On the contrary the appellant vide his application dated 11.3.83 and 11.5.83 admitted the misuser with connected load of 35 H.P. against sanctioned load of 2.0 K.W. and made a request to include the penalities applicable under the Rules. It was in these circumstances that a bill for Rs. 11,147.52 was raised. (See page 16 of the District Forum''s file). The appellant accordingly cannot be allowed to take a somersault and put on the face of injured innocence to claim the refund of the said amount. The appellant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and being guilty of having misused the connection (Tel Ghani) is not entitled to the relief sought.

EQUALLY devoid of merit is the other submission of the appellant that he may be allowed interest on the security deposit with the respondent. Although in his complaint he does make a mention in this respect but in the prayers clause he has not claimed this relief. Apart from this, the appellant has not been able to substantiate his plea on any authority or rule. The appeal which is benefit of merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.