JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur through its Executive Officer, and Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board through its Executive Officer filed suit for declaration against (1) SDO Punjab State Electricity Board Civil Lines, Sub Division, Hoshiarpur; (2) Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Hoshiarpur; and (3) Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Chairman to the effect that bill No. 13836 dated 11.3.1994 amounting to Rs. 82,300/- was illegal, null and void and the defendants have no right to recover the amount of that bill from them and for permanent injunction restraining them from recovering the amount of the said bill dated 11.3.1994 and further restraining them from disconnecting the electric connection No. MS-19. It was alleged in the plaint that Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur has electric connection No. MS-19. With the electric connection, is operated a tubewell, which is located at Bansi Nagar, Hoshiarpur. This tubewell is supplying drinking water to the public at large of that locality. It is a basic amenity which has to be extended to the inhabitants of that locality by the Municipal Committee. Average bill of electricity consumption on this tubewell was about Rs. 5000/- per month. Bill for Rs. 82,300/- was issued under wrong impression. It was highly excessive. Connection of the tubewell was initially obtained by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and after the installation of the tubewell, the tubewell was handed over to the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur was regularly paying electricity charges. 2. Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as "the PSEB") contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that electric connection No. MS-19 is in the name of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and a 3 CT meter was installed for running tubewell on 15.6.1992 and on checking connection to one of the CTs was found to be reversed thereby nullifying the action of the second CT meter. As a result, only one CT meter was contributing for recording of energy. Meter was recording 1/3rd reading. Inspection was done by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 5.10.1993 and this defect was detected and the connection of the meter was set right and, thereafter reading of the meter jumped to three times than all the previous readings. Account of the said meter was over-hauled from the date of the installation of the meter and the bill was rightly issued. 3. Account of the said meter was over-hauled from the date of the installation of the meter and the bill was rightly issued. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : i. Whether the bill dated 11.3.1994 is null and void as alleged ? OPP. ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for ? OPP. iii. Relief. 4. Vide order dated 22.2.1995, Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration that bill dated 11.3.1994 was null and void and the defendants were accordingly restrained from recovering the amount of Rs. 82,300/- per bill dated 11.3.1994 and the defendants were restrained from disconnecting electric connection No. MS-19 due to non-deposit of Rs. 82,300/- in view of his finding, that there was no tampering with the meter on the part of the Municipal Committee. It was found that if only one CT was contributing for recording of energy, the Board should have installed a check meter and after comparing the recording of the energy by both the meters, the Board could conclude that the disputed meter was recording 1/3rd of the electric energy and only one CT was contributing for recording of the energy. 5. Not satisfied with the order of Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur dated 22.2.1995, PSEB went in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 30.9.1997. 6. Still not satisfied, PSEB has come up in further appeal to this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 5.10.1993, Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the disputed connection. At the time of checking, connection of one of the CTs was found reversed, thereby action of second CT meter was nullified. Only one CT was contributing for the recording of the energy. Meter was recording only 1/3rd of the energy actually consumed. It was submitted that after the connection of the meter was set right, the reading of the meter jumped to three times and the bill was over-hauled. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Sh. J.L. Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer, only due to wrong connection meter was not properly working. There was no tampering with the meter on the part of the Committee, and the seals were intact. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Sh. J.L. Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer, only due to wrong connection meter was not properly working. There was no tampering with the meter on the part of the Committee, and the seals were intact. It was submitted that the employees of the Electricity Board had installed the electric meter and the Committee was not at fault. If wrong connection had been given by the employees of the Electricity Board, action should have been taken against them. No notice was given to the Committee that wrong connection had been given. Further, connection was not checked in the presence of any responsible officer of the Committee. The average bill received earlier was to the tune of the amount of Rs. 5000/- per month. Suddenly, there was such a heavy spurt. Such a heavy spurt was not justified. No check meter was installed to show that actually wrong connection had been given. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was true that there was no tampering with the meter and the seals of the meter were intact. Meter was not correctly recording the electric energy consumed. It was recording only 1/3rd of the electric energy consumed because the connection of one of the CTs was found reversed due to wrong connection. Only one CT was contributing for the recording of the energy. Disc of the meter was consuming 42 seconds. It was submitted that account of the Committee was over-hauled from the date of installation of the meter. It was submitted that plaintiffs paid only for 33 units for every 100 units consumed. The Board was demanding for the un- recorded but consumed energy of 67%. The defect was detected and the connection was set right. After the connection was set right, the reading of the meter jumped to three times of the previous reading. It was submitted that the disc of the meter was consuming 42 seconds for one revolution and after correction, disc was consuming 14 seconds for one revolution and in this manner, it is proved that the connection to CT was wrong and there was no necessity for installing check meter. 9. It was submitted that the disc of the meter was consuming 42 seconds for one revolution and after correction, disc was consuming 14 seconds for one revolution and in this manner, it is proved that the connection to CT was wrong and there was no necessity for installing check meter. 9. It was thus a clear case where the PSEB was being paid only for 1/3rd of the electric energy consumed and the Municipal Committee was not paying for the remaining 2/3rd of electric energy consumed. It was because the meter was recording only 1/3rd of the electric energy actually consumed. One CT was reversing the reading. Only one CT was recording the energy in the meter. It was a 3 CT meter installed for running the tubewell. With the reversal of one CT, the connection of other CT was nullified and the meter was recording only 1/3rd of the energy consumed. When the connection of the meter was set right, the reading of the meter jumped to three times. It was not a case of theft. As such, there was no tampering with the meter and the seals were also intact. If at the time of installing, 3 CT meter, one CT was reversed and thereby the connection of the two CT meter was nullified and only one CT meter was contributing for recording the energy, the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur could not shirk the responsibility of paying charges for the electricity actually consumed in the running of the tubewell. 3 CT meter was installed on 15.6.1992. It was checked on 5.10.1993. When the defect was noticed, the account was over-hauled with effect from the date when the meter was installed. 10. In my opinion, there was no wrong committed by the Board in the over- hauling of the account meter from the date meter was installed originally till 5.10.1993 when it was detected that only 1/3rd of the electric energy consumed was being recorded on the meter due to the reversal of one CT, thereby nullifying the action of the second CT. Sh. J.L. Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer categorically stated that the disc of the meter was consuming 42 seconds for one revolution and after correction was made, 14 seconds for one revolution and this was suggesting that connection to CT was wrong and there was no necessity of installing a check meter. 11. Sh. J.L. Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer categorically stated that the disc of the meter was consuming 42 seconds for one revolution and after correction was made, 14 seconds for one revolution and this was suggesting that connection to CT was wrong and there was no necessity of installing a check meter. 11. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the Municipal Committee, submitted that checking allegedly done by Sh. J.L. Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board is not binding on them as at the time of checking none of its responsible officials was joined. 12. Suffice it to say, Sh. J.L. Mehta had not found any tampering with the meter. He did not find any tampering with the seals of the meter. He found that the connections given to the meter were defective. Due to wrong connection, meter was not working properly. Bill for lesser amount used to be issued in the past because the entire electric energy consumed did not appear on the meter. Only 1/3rd of the electric energy actually consumed was appearing on the meter. Bill was over-hauled with effect from 15.6.1992 i.e. when the meter was installed in the beginning till the date of checking. 13. In my opinion both the courts below fell in error while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Committee. Plaintiff-Municipal Committee has to pay for the electric energy actually consumed by it. After the wrong electric connections were corrected, the reading of the meter jumped to three times. When the electric connection MS-19 was given on 15.6.1992, wrong connection took place. From the very beginning only 1/3rd of the electric charge actually consumed was recorded on the meter. Electricity Board was justified in demanding for the remaining 2/3rd of the electric energy consumed from 15.6.1992 onwards. There is no equity in favour of the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur in its claim to withhold the payment when it had contracted to pay for the energy actually consumed. Plaintiffs suit was decreed on wrong premise by the two courts below. 14. For the reasons given above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the two courts below are set aside. In consequence, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.