1. Electricity consumption assessment dispute — blown fuse in potential transformer (PT) causing incorrect recording — challenge under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 84
1998(1) Supreme 383
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.N. Kirpal and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
U.P.S.E.B -Appellant
versus
Atma Steels & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 502-503 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11684 and 12699 of 1995)
Decided on 20-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D.A. Dave, A.B. Rohtagi, Sr. Advocates, Pradeep Misra, R.B. Misra, Kamlendra Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Singh, Vinhal Dixit, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
Where function of a Potential Transformer was to enable the ascertaining or regulating of amount of energy that instrument namely PT has to be regarded as a meter and the Electrical Inspector had jurisdiction to exercise his powers u/s 26 of Indian Electricity Act.
Where function of a Potential Transformer was to enable the ascertaining or regulating of amount of energy that instrument namely PT has to be regarded as a meter and the Electrical Inspector had jurisdiction to exercise his powers u/s 26 of Indian Electricity Act.
Subject
Electricity Law - Metering and Billing Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Indian Electricity Act, 1910 -Section 26-Show cause notice for charges for less consumption-Fuse in the potential transformer (PT) was found blown off and consequently quantum of electricity consumed was not being correctly recorded in the meter-Only function of the PT was to enable the ascertaining or regulating of the amount of energy-Instrument namely PT has to be regarded as a meter in terms of Section 26(7) of the Act-Electrical Inspector had jurisdiction to exercise his power u/s 26(7) of the Act-Order of appellate authority that Electrical Inspector did not have jurisdiction as transformer could not be regarded as a meter was rightly set aside by High Court. (Para 7)
(ii) Indian Electricity Act, 1910 -Section 36(2)-Appeal against the order of Electrical Inspector-Who has to hear the appeal is for the Government to decide-Direction by High Court indicating as to who in the Government should hear appeal was not in conformity with Section 36(2) of the Act. (Para 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a potential transformer (PT) constitutes a meter under Section 26(7) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the resulting jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector. (Para 5 )
3. A potential transformer (PT) reduces voltage to enable meter recording, thus functioning as essential metering equipment under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. An instrument whose sole function is to enable the ascertaining or regulating of energy supplied constitutes a meter under Section 26(7) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. (Para 7 )
5. Finding on PT as a meter upheld; direction on appellate authority's composition set aside; respondent directed to pay outstanding amount with interest. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Is a potential transformer (PT) considered a meter under Section 26(7) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910?
Yes. Because the PT's function is to reduce voltage to enable the meter to record the amount of power consumed, it is regarded as a meter under Section 26(7) of the Act. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Can a court direct the specific identity or technical qualifications of the person hearing an appeal under Section 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910?
No. Under Section 36(2), the Government decides who hears the appeal or whether to refer it to an Advisory Board. A court direction specifying the individual hearing the appeal is not in conformity with the Act. (Para 8 )
8. What is the legal effect of a party's undertaking to pay demanded amounts to a court to secure reconnection of electricity?
The party cannot be absolved of the obligation to pay the demanded amount as agreed in the undertaking, regardless of whether the matter is remanded for a decision on merits. (Para 9 , 10 )
Order
Special Leave granted in both the matters.
The respondent obtains electricity from the appellant. On 10th December, 1992 a surprise check was made at the respondent’s place and it was found that in the potential transformer (PT) a fuse had been blown off with the result that it was not supplying any electricity from primary cable to secondary cable and, as a consequences thereof, the quantum of electricity consumed was not being correctly recorded in the meter. A notice was issued requiring the respondent to show cause as to why charges for less consumption be not charged for the period December 1991 to December 1992. In order to avoid the disconnection of the electricity, the respondent, with the permission of the authority, installed a new PT on the respondent undertaking to pay in future for the supply given to it.
2. On 29th December 1992 respondent gave a reply to the show cause notice and inter alia raised a dispute that the PT and the meter panelling were not working properly. After taking into consideration the reply, the Executive Engineer on 22nd January 1993 made an assessment of Rs. 57,77,891.38 and raised a bill. Thereupon the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad challenging the said assessment. The Civil Judge passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant from recovering the assessment amount and from disconnecting the supply. In the written statement filed by the appellant herein the demand of Rs. 57,77,891.38 was justified. According to the appellant the respondent, while the suit was still pending, filed an application before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 20th February 1993 purporting to be under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 requiring the Inspector to exercise his jurisdiction under the said provision and to quash the aforesaid assessment which had been made by the Executive Engineer. On 6th April, 1993 the respondent filed an application before the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, inter-alia, prayed that the electricity which had been disconnected should be restored and the respondent be permitted to pay the aforesaid demand by instalments. Along with the application 12 post dated cheques were filed and the respondent gave an undertaking to the Court to the effect that if after the acceptance of the cheques and restoration of electricity any cheque is not encashed or it is dishonoured then the appellant herein will have the right to disconnect the electricity of the respondent without any notice. This application was made while reserving the right of the respondent to make a reference for arbitration. On the same day, the trial Court accepted the application and ordered the reconnection of the electricity and it was specifically mentioned in this order that the conditions mentioned in the respondent’s application will form part of the order. 3 days thereafter, the suit itself was withdrawn.
3. The Chief Electrical Inspector took cognizance of the application which was filed before it and issued notice to the appellant herein. Though reply was filed to the said application, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court which was disposed of on 5th November, 1993 with a direction to the Electrical Inspector to decide the reference within 6 weeks.
4. By the order dated 15th April, 1994 the Electrical Inspector allowed the application after coming to the conclusion that the fuse in one of the PT has blown off but the amount which was demanded by the appellant was not reasonable. Curiously enough, having come to the conclusion that the meter had not recorded the correct amount of the consumption of electricity because of the blowing off the fuse the Electrical Inspector did not himself assess as to what should have been the correct amount payable by the respondent.
5. The appellant then filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This appeal was allowed with the
