Shanti Prasad v. The Bihar State Electricity Bi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12000 of 2011 ======================================================
1. Shanti Prasad Sri Chandradeo Prasad I.A.S Colony, Rupaspur, South Of Bailey Road, Danapur, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan ,Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Joint Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna
4. Chief Engineer-Cum General Manager Bihar State Electricity Board, Mangles Rd. Patna
5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.
JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Board.
The petitioner is a consumer of DSII connection. The petitioner submits that the respondent Board has not been issuing electrical bill regularly inasmuch as she did not receive any electrical bills for the period from October, 2010 to May, 2011. However, after lot of persuasion she was shown the amount due to her in July, 2011. The petitioner under protest paid the amount so demanded.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board stating therein that the bill has been charged as per the tariff. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein in paragraph 6 it has been stated that net payable amount by the petitioner as on 10.8.2015 is Rs.39,042/- and added the left over amount of Rs.24,590/- the total energy bill up to July 2015 is Rs.63,632/- which is payable by the petitioner. I find that the respondents found that a sum of Rs.24,590/- was wrongly not added in the ledger and as such after adding the aforesaid amount, the total energy bill up to July, 2015 came to Rs.63,632/- which includes a sum of Rs.1065.21 as the amount of D.P.S.
In my view, no Delayed Payment Surcharge would be chargeable on the amount which the Board itself could not properly accounted for earlier while issuing the bill. Similarly, no D.P.S. of Rs.730/- would be chargeable in the cumulative bill issued in July 2011 for the period October, 2010 to May, 2011. The aforesaid D.P.S. amount of Rs.1065.21 and Rs.730/- has to be deleted from the total bill payable by the petitioner. It will be open for the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent No.5, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Danapur Division or the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Incharge of
the area for fixing an installment, which would be disposed of within three weeks from the date of its filing. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/- U