Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1317 (PAT)

Regent Theatre v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2013-11-19

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2013
Judgment R.K. Datta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the supplementary bill dated 23.11.1994 for Rs. 62,554.90 and subsequent bills raised enhancing the reading recorded on the meter installed by the respondents at the premises of the petitioner. However, Mr. S.S. Rekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the challenge to any subsequent bills are concerned although they may be based on the meter reading, he is not challenging the same and not pressing the relief sought to that extent. 3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Cinema hall and a consumer of electricity having received an electrical connection from the respondent-Board bearing A/c. No. 1462 CS-III, Route No. 15-22101800. The electrical meter was installed by the respondent-Board in the premises of the petitioner and bills raised from time to time were paid by the petitioner till 24.10.1994. On 24.10.1994 an inspection was made by the functionaries of the respondent-Board who did not record any finding of tampering with the meter but observed that during the testing one P.T. has been found open due to short circuit in the C.T. Box. After that the C.T. Box was opened and tested all the three C.Ts. and found O.K. but one P.T. connection has been found burnt out which burnt wire was repaired and after repairing of burnt wire the function of all three CTs. was found O.K. It is not in dispute that on the inspecting team coming to the conclusion that the meter was running slow by 29.45%, they had not referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector, rather on their own the respondents raised a bill dated 23.11.1994 for Rs. 62,554.90 for six months as assessment of units short billed due to incorrectness of meter. The testing of the respondents was disputed by the petitioner by its letters dated 16.12.1994 and 12.12.1994. Apprehending disconnection on account of non-payment of bill, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 62,554.90 for six months as assessment of units short billed due to incorrectness of meter. The testing of the respondents was disputed by the petitioner by its letters dated 16.12.1994 and 12.12.1994. Apprehending disconnection on account of non-payment of bill, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ application. This Court while admitting the writ application for hearing directed that if the petitioner tenders the amount payable to the Board minus the amount claimed in the bill in question and the authorities of the Board do not accept payment, they will not be entitled to claim delayed payment surcharge or interest thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which was applicable at the relevant time where any difference or dispute arises with respect to a meter not being correct, it could only have been decided upon an application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector and only such Inspector has the authority to estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of the Inspector has been correct but except on such finding of the Electrical Inspector, the register of the meter is to be conclusive proof of the amount or quantity of electricity supplied to a consumer in the absence of fraud. It is thus, submitted by learned counsel that admittedly the respondent-Board having acted unilaterally in the matter and raised the bills treating the meter as defective and not correctly recording, such bill is contrary to the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and is fit to be quashed. 5. In support of the aforesaid stand learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Smt. Basantibai, 1988 SC 71, in paras 9 and 10 of which it has been held as follows:- “9. It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-sec. (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-sec. (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-sec. (6) of S. 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of S. 26(6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act. 10. In the instant case it appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was not working at all, so there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is a correct one or a faulty meter and this dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision will be final. It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer, as the Board is not empowered to do so by the said Act. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations made in the case of Gadag Betgiri, Municipal Borough, Gadag v. Electrical Inspector, Govt. Electrical Inspectorate, Govt. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations made in the case of Gadag Betgiri, Municipal Borough, Gadag v. Electrical Inspector, Govt. Electrical Inspectorate, Govt. of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mys 209 as follows :- "What the Inspector may decide under sub-sec. (6) is whether or not the readings obtainable from the meter are accurate and whether the meter is faulty or mechanically defective, producing erroneous readings. That is the limited adjudication which in my opinion, an Inspector or other authority functioning under sub-sec. (6) may make under its provisions." x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x "In my opinion, the legislative intent underlying S. 26(6) of the Act is similar. The only question into which the Inspector or other authority functioning under that subsection might investigate is, whether the meter is a false meter capable of improper use or whether it registers correctly and accurately the quantity of electrical energy passing through it. If in that sense, the meter installed by respondent 2 this case was a correct meter as it undoubtedly was and as it has been admitted to be, the fact that respondent 2, even if what the petitioner states is true, so manipulated the supply lines that more energy than what was consumed by the petitioner was allowed to pass through the meter would not render the meter which was otherwise correct an incorrect meter." 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Electricity Board, on the other hand, submits that under the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act either of the parties could go to the Electrical Inspector and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the revised bill served by the respondent-Board then it was open to it to have approached the Electrical Inspector in the matter which has not been done and it should not be permitted after a lapse of so much time. 7. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the revised bill itself has been submitted on the basis of check meter; the meter itself on the inspection made was found to be not working correctly and after taking proper steps the authorities of the Board corrected the meter by replacing the C.T., whereafter it was found to be working correctly hence, according to learned counsel, the Board has rightly raised the bill three times the tariff for a period of six months under Clause 16(9) of the Tariff. 8. Learned counsel further submits that when the meter was not functioning properly the petitioner must be held responsible for the same and the Board cannot be allowed to suffer a loss on that account. 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Basantibai’s case (supra), it is evident that none of the submissions of learned counsel for the Board is sufficient to meet the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. From the provisions of Section 26(1) and (6) of the Act which have been interpreted in Smt. Basantibai’s case, it is clear that if it is the Board which disputes the correctness of the meter then it is for it to approach the Electrical Inspector in the matter and it is not a case that the petitioner had raised any grievance regarding the incorrectness of meter. The said correctness has been doubted by the authorities of the Board and thus it does not lie in the mouth of the Board to say that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the acts of the authorities of the Board, it could have approached the Electrical Inspector. 10. The said correctness has been doubted by the authorities of the Board and thus it does not lie in the mouth of the Board to say that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the acts of the authorities of the Board, it could have approached the Electrical Inspector. 10. In terms of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, the respondent-Board was obliged to raise the electricity bill on the basis of reading recorded by the meter installed by the Board and in case it had any suspicion that the meter was not recording correctly rather it was slow then it was for them to have approached the Electrical Inspector to look into the matter and any defect found in the meter and any short reading recorded could only have been subject-matter of decision of the Electrical Inspector, who alone is the statutory authority to decide such matters including the amount of correct energy supplied which can be charged by the respondents. 11. Even the Electrical Inspector has not been given any authority to direct the licensee to charge three times the amount of short fall rather he can only estimate the amount of electricity supplied to the consumer along with the quantity for a period which shall not exceed six months. The reliance upon Clause 16(9) of the respondent-Board is wholly misconceived in the absence of any allegation of tampering or fraud in the inspection report dated 24.10.1994. The submission that the petitioner was responsible for meter not functioning properly is not based upon any material on the record and has to be rejected outright. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed, the supplementary bill dated 23.11.1994 for Rs. 62,554.90 is quashed and the respondents are restrained from raising any additional electricity charge pursuant to the inspection report dated 24.10.1994. In case any such amount under the said supplementary bill has already been paid by the petitioner which neither learned counsel for the petitioner nor for the Board is in a position to state with clarity, it is directed that the respondent-Board shall refund the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.