Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 781 (JHR)

Machine Shop v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2001-11-27

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER By the Court 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the bill issued by the respondent-Board for the month of August, 2000 on the basis of minimum base charges on the ground that the meter was defective. 3. The petitioner is H.T. consumer having contract demand of 135 KVA since 1996, Petitioners ease is that by virtue of the Boards decision, petitioner was exempted from payment of A.M.G. Charges for five years. In August, 2000. the meter of the petitioner stopped giving reading from 3.8.2000 and the said fact was duly communicated to the Executive Engineer, in the meantime, the respondent-Board raised impugned bill for the month of August. 2000 on the basis of M.B.C. (minimum base charges) for 20942 units. The petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit has stated that on the basis of order passed by this Court on 28.9.2000. the impugned bill (Annexure-3) was revised by the Board and a fresh bill was raised on the basis of previous three months average consumption. A copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit. The impugned bill has been raised for three month i.e. from August, 2000 to October, 2000. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Board rightly corrected the impugned bill (Annexure-3) by issuing revised bill (An-nexure-) and the petitioner has no objection to the correctness of the revised bill (Annexure-7). 4. The question as to how and in what manner the Board will raise monthly bills in case of defective meter is no longer res integra. This Court on various occasions have taken the view that in case of defective meter normally bill should be raised on the basis of three months average consumption, in the proceeding month when the meter became defective. Mr. V.P. Singh. learned counsel appearing for the Board vehemently argued that the revised bill has been raised not by way of correcting the impugned bill but in compliance of interim order passed by this Court on 28.9.2000. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned bill (Annexure-3) has been rightly raised on the basis of minimum base charges. 5. As noticed above, the meter became defective in August. 2000 and. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned bill (Annexure-3) has been rightly raised on the basis of minimum base charges. 5. As noticed above, the meter became defective in August. 2000 and. the respondent-Board was duly informed in the same month but no action was taken by the respondents immediately to replace the defective meter and the petitioner continuously consumed electricity for one year due to inaction on the part of the respondents. 6. In that view of the matter, even if by reason of raising revised bill on the basis of three months average, the Board has suffered substantial loss, it was only on account of sheer negligence of the officers of the Board. Besides the above, a bench of this Court following earlier decisions |AIR 1995 Patna-43 and CWJC No. 3182/1999(R)| has held that in cases where meter became defective, the respondent-Board while raising the bill must take into consideration average three months consumption during the proceeding months when meter became defective. Reference may be made to the case of Murliwala Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. B.S.E. Board & Ors. 2001 (1) JLJR 111 : 2001 (1) J C R 245 (Jh). 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the impugned bill as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application is quashed. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount shown in the revised bill, (Annexures-7 and 8 series). 8. Writ application allowed.