The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand for payment of a sum of Rs. 21,10,457.32ps. together with interest was unwarranted by law and unsustainable, and the Executive Engineer (Electrical) contravened sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Limited, Mysore entered into an agreement with the State Government for supply of electrical energy to the Company with the agreement providing for terms and conditions regarding minimum charges payable, mode of supply of energy, metering, payment for supply of energy inclusive of disconnection of supply in the event of non-payment of arrears. The agreement also provided for rate per unit at which electricity so supplied is to be charged. After the Karnataka Electricity Board carne into existence, similar agreements were executed between the petitioner and the Board for periods of five years duration at a time, subject to renewal after the expiry of such agreements. The Board has installed a meter in the premises of Sri Krishnarajendra Mills in order to caliberate the power consumed by the factory. The Meter Number is HT-l7 and there are two meters installed in the caliberating system, one for the purpose of calculating the demand KVA and the other for recording the actual energy consumed. The entire metering system is placed in a cubicle which is locked from outside and then sealed by the Board and the meter is the property of the Board and its responsibility is to maintain the meter also and the petitioner has no control whatsoever over the functioning of the meter. In order to take the readings from the meter, the officials of the respondent-Board visit the premises, note down the actual reading of the meter and based on the readings, furnish a bill for payment of the amount in respect of the energy consumed for the corresponding month in accordance with the prescribed rates. The officials of the respondent-Board are expected to and have been recording the meter readings regularly every month without interruption and the petitioner has been paying the monthly bills regularly as and when they are received.

( 2 ) CONTROVERSY arose when a letter dated 29-06-1979 was received by the petitioner from the Executive Engineer (Electrical), City Area, Mysore belonging to the office of the first respondent-Board informing that during the visit of one Sri Vasudevan, Assistant Executive Engineer, K. E. B. to the Mills on 09-12-1977 at about 7 p. m. , he found on a test check that H. T. meters of installation were not recording consumption of energy at all. He informed the Executive Engineer (Electrical), K. E. B. , City Area Division, Mysore that non-recording was due to non-voltage in supply to the meters and this being on account of slight unscrewing of the two screw type fuse units provided on the two potential circuit inside the meter cubicle. It was also made out in the letter that the Assistant Executive Engineer found out this fact only after he broke open the seals and broke open the door of the cubicle. The letter also discloses that there are two independent supply feeders to the petitioner-company which is common to some other net work of branch lines which are stationed at Forbes Transformer Station (F. T. S.) and that the major consumption of power output of power from the said F. T. S. is only the petitioner-company. The letter stated that whereas during the period between April 197 6/11/1977 except for the month of February, 1977, that the consumption recorded by the meters in the petitioner's premises was not commensurate with the output resulting in heavy loss of revenue to the Board and that it was not possible to recover amounts commensurate with the quantity of power sent out from F. T. S. and hence the petitioner-company should be liable to make good the loss together with tax. Thereupon the petitioner was called upon to make payment of a total sum of Rupees 21,83,359. 64 ps. under Annexure-C. The petitioner replied to this demand by a letter dated 5th and 6/07/1979 seeking clarification from the respondent regarding the basis on which the demand was made. Since no reply was received despite the reminder dated 17-07-1979 addressed to the Executive E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document