AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.Y. Eqbal, J.—Heard the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Bill dated 7.6.2000 served on the petitioner whereby the demand of Rs. 16,22,788/- being the cost of construction of a separate 33 KV line has been included in the bill of the petitioner.
In 1996 the petitioner applied for H.T. Electrical connection for 1300 K.V.A. respondent Board sanctioned the supply of electricity and estimated cost of Rs. 1,30,693/-was charged which was deposited by the petitioner but on protest. High Tension line of the petitioner was energized taut subsequently a fresh estimate of Rs. 13,98,573/-was sent to the petitioner with a direction to make payment of the said amount being the cost for construction of a separate 33KV Feeder. Petitioner vehemently challenged the said demand on the ground that neither the Act nor the Rule permits for recovery of such amount which the Board incurred in the construction of separate feeder.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Board, it is stated that the said cost of construction of a separate 33KV line has been charged as per the instruction received from the Board. It is further stated that petitioner has already executed an agreement for payment in installament in respect of the said amount. It is further stated that the cost of construction of 33 KV line on the premises of the consumer has been charged as per rules as well as instructions received from the Board.
Learned junior counsel appearing for the Board in course of argument submitted that this amount was charged on the instructions of the Chairman of the Board. However, no rules, tariff or any statutory instructions have been shown to this Court in support of their claim. In absence of any such rule or condition for supply of electricity, the impugned demand is wholly illegal and unjustified.
For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand is quashed.