Back
2007(7) Supreme 484
Supreme Court of india
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Suresh Jindal — Petitioner
versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4789 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14308/2006]
Decided on : 11-10-2007
(b)Judicial Review – Any amount of rationale or justification would not legalise an illegal act – Rationale of replacing the existing meters with electronic meters is not at all relevant. (Para 35)
(2003) 1SCC 591 – Relied upon
(c)Judicial Review – Appellant not objecting to the change of conventional meter by electronic meter – He proceeded on the basis that the change of the meter is permissible in law – He allowed the respondent to enter into his premises and change a correct meter by another one which according to him is also correct – Therefore, he cannot now turn round and contend that electronic meters do not record correct consumption of electrical energy – It is one thing to say that an electronic meter does not register actual consumption resulting in higher energy bill, but it is another thing to say that it was legally impermissible. (Para 38)
(d)Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Section 20 – Electricity Regulatory Commission issuing directions to replace all existing meters with electronic meters to check large scale Transmission losses – No illegality therein.(Para 39)
(e)Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Section 20 – Section 20 operates in the field of conferring a power of entry on the licensee – It is an independent general provision and empowers the licensee to alter a meter which would include replacement of a meter – In absence of any statutory provision there is no reason to put a restrictive meaning thereto. (Para 43)
(2003) 4 SCC 601 – Relied upon.
(f)Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Section 26 – Section 26 is attracted only when there exists a dispute – The dispute may be in regard to the quantum of the amount required to be expended for removing the meter or the correctness of the recordings of the meter. (Para 44)
(1997) 6 SCC 740 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1.Appellant is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is a licensee. A meter for the purpose of recording consumption of electrical energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter.
2.The electronic meter was tested by the officials of the respondent and it was found that the same was running fast by about +1.79% which is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises was of Class-I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court for testing/ replacement of the meter.
4.The writ petition was dismissed.
Findings of the Court :
In absence of any statutory provision there is no reason to put a restrictive meaning to section 20, Electricity Act, 1910. Replacement of conventional meter with electronic meter is not illegal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Appellant is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is a licensee. A meter for the purpose of recording consumption of electrical energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter.
3.The electronic meter was tested by the officials of the respondent and it was found that the same was running fast by about +1.79% which is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises was of Class-I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court inter alia contending;
“4.That the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner was intact and OK and was recording the consumption as per Section 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules, 1956 and there was no percentage error in the recording of the consumption in the meter earlier installed by the agents of the Respondent in the premises of the Petitioner.
5.That the Petitioner believing the intention of the Respondent has permitted the Respondent to install the meter of their own choice believing that the meter which was installed in the premises of the Petitioner is of approved design and specification of ISI and also in accordance with the rules and regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003.”
In the writ petition, the following prayers were made by him :
a.A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby declaring the acts of the officials of the Respondents as illegal and malafide in replacing the correct and working meter of the Petitioner by another meter in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No.2540F320018 installed for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi.
b.A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby quashing the meter testing report prepared on 03/03/2005 in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No. 2540F320018 installed for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi.
c.A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent to get the meter of the Petitioner tested as per rule 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules 1956 through an independent agency or in any other manner as this Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
d.A writ order or direction thereby directing the Respondent to calibrate, seal and install at the premises of the Petitioner, the electro mechanical energy meter of ISI make procured by the Petitioner in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No. 2540F320018 for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi after replacing the existing meter.”
4.The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by a judgment and Order dated 14.12.2005. A letters patent appeal was preferred thereagainst and by reason of the impugned judgment, the same has been dismissed. Appellant is, thus, before us.
5.Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal, inter alia, would submit;
(i)Respondent being a licensee governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred as 1910 Act); the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as 1948 Act) or the subsequent Acts namely Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 2000 Act) or Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being not applicable, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.
(ii)Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 whereupon reliance was placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit is clearly inapplicable and thus reliance placed thereupon by the High Court in this behalf was wholly unwarranted.
(iii)The tariff framed by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any jurisdiction upon the respondents to remove the correct meter and replace the same by another correct meter.
(iv)The only provision which could have been taken recourse to for replacement of a meter being Section 26 of the 1910 Act and the same being not applicable in this case, the impugned J
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
