Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
M/s Gokul Steels Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9742 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2021
Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56(1) – Supplementary Bill – Mere error/omission on part of respondents in making correct calculation would not amount to any real dispute, as unit(s) reflected in meter is/are not being changed and even petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to recording(s)/reading(s) of new metering unit having a multiplying factor of 02 – If requirement is that for any reading in a metering unit classified as M.F. 02, units recorded have to be multiplied with 02 while raising a demand, rectification of an error in such exercise is merely clerical – Respondents cannot be shut off from raising a supplementary demand which even otherwise, is in accordance with law and at same time would not preclude or prevent them from raising supplementary demand and recovering huge arrears and would also not create any indefeasible right in petitioner to absolve himself from payment of same – Merely because for five years there has been an oversight on part of respondents, that cannot be stretched to the extent that it shall prevent respondents from realizing an amount which was, otherwise, in law, due to them and which petitioner was liable to pay. (Paras 11, 13 and 14)
Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56(1) – Supplementary Bill – Purpose of any inspection is to determine correct factual position and not to satisfy any person – If a specific lacuna/deficiency/fault in carrying out such inspection is not brought to notice of authorities at the very time and stage of inspection, same cannot be sustained at a later stage – Request for installing a check meter does not merit consideration as it cannot be done just on asking of petitioner, in absence of any ground/reason disclosed by petitioner in support of such request – When no specific deficiency is pointed out, it creates an impression that petitioner has not got any genuine ground for being dissatisfied, and further that to him inspection shall be satisfactory only if result is what he desires and that he shall never be satisfied with any inspection – Even otherwise, respondents cannot give any uncalled-for indulgence to petitioner by carrying out repeated exercise relating to metering unit installed in petitioner's premises, that too, without being aware of specific deficiency in earlier testing so as to ensure that it is not repeated – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 15 and 16)
(2020) 4 SCC 650 – Referred.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel along with Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:
(ii) For quashing of the bill dated 02.12.2020 issued in pursuance of the letter no. 3109 dated 2.12.2020 for Rs.5,67,41,905/-
(iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities not to insist upon the demand till the veracity/correctness of the meter is tested by a check meter in accordance with the provisions as contained in the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007.
(iv) For a direction to the respondent authorities not to incorporate the supplementary demand, in regular future energy bills, as current consumption charges is distinct from any supplementary bill issued in terms of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(v) For a direction to the respondent authorities not to disconnect the electric supply of the petitioner for non-payment of the revised supplementary bill amount as raised vide letter no. 3109 dated 2.12.2020, due date whereof has been fixed as 17.12.2020.
(vi) For a declaration that in view of the specific provision under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding limitation for raising any demand and consequential disconnection, the respondent authorities cannot disconnect the electric supply till adjudication of the dispute; and for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is against the supplementary demand raised by the respondents by and under Letter No. 3109 dated 01.12.2020 for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the first time after five years, the respondents have raised such supplementary demand, which is not in accordance with law. It was submitted that when there is no dispute or change in the amount of consumption by the petitioner, the multiplying factor of 02, which is the reason for them to raise such supplementary demand, is unjustified. Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioner has made a representation before the competent authority for testing of the meter which is still pending. Learned counsel submitted that there is imminent threat of disconnection due to non-payment of the huge demand of more than rupees five and a half crores. It was submitted that even in the bill(s) for the month of November, 2020, onwards, the petitioner unit is under constant threat of disconnection of his electric supply. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamiulla [(2020) 4 SCC 650] has held that disconnection of supply to the consumer on account of non-payment of additional demand of electricity charges is impermissible. Learned counsel submitted that even the regulation requires the testing of the metering unit on a dispute raised by the consumer within seven days which has not been complied with.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is trying to create a dispute when there is none. It was submitted that initially, at the petitioner unit, a High Tension service metering unit was installed on 25.04.2014, which was burnt leading to installation of a new metering unit on 24.08.2015. It was submitted that the first metering unit had the multiplying factor of 01, whereas the second metering unit, installed on 24.08.2015, has a multiplying factor of 02. Learned counsel stated that this, in substance, means that whatever is
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
