Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Soumitra Sen
JAI GLASS AND CHEMICALS PVT.LTD - Appellant
Versus
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent
A. C. 14 Of 2004
Decided On : 04/27/2005
ELECTRICITY - ARBITRATION - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION - DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO ELECTRICITY BILL AND CORRECTNESS OF ELECTRIC METER - ADJUDICATION BY CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR - WHETHER AN AWARD UNDER ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 - WHETHER CHALLENGED IN APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 30 AND 33 OF ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 OR BY APPEAL UNDER SECTION 36 (2) OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a consumer, challenged electricity bills before the High Court under Article 226 and filed a special suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 along with an application under section 41 of the Act. The Chief Electrical Inspector, pursuant to a High Court order, adjudicated the dispute and passed an impugned order. The petitioner challenged the award under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order of the Chief Electrical Inspector could not be challenged in an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, but rather by preferring an appeal under section 36 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order of the Chief Electrical Inspector was an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the impugned order by an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or whether an appeal under section 36 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, was the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and held that certain disputes, including those relating to electricity bills and the correctness of electric meters, were required to be adjudicated by the Chief Electrical Inspector. 2. The Court held that the reference to the Chief Electrical Inspector for adjudication of the dispute was not a reference under the Arbitration Act, 1940, as it was made pursuant to the High Court order and not under Clause 27 of the agreement between the parties. 3. The Court noted that section 36 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, provided for an appeal against an order of the Electrical Inspector and that there was no other provision under which such an order could be challenged.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court clarified that it did not decide the merits of the case and that the petitioner was at liberty to take appropriate legal steps to challenge the impugned award or decision.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under sections 30 and 33 of the arbitration Act, 1940 or setting aside of an award dated 29th/30th march, 1995, passed by the Deputy Electrical Inspector, West Bengal. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 the West Bengal State electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the WBSEB') had entered into an agreement for supply electricity under certain terms and conditions. Clause 27 of the said agreement provides as follows:-"should any dispute or difference arises between the Board and the Consumer relating to any of the matters in this Agreement, the same shall be referable to two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party to the dispute and provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to such arbitration in all other respects. "
( 2 ) DISPUTES and differences arose as between the parties with regard to the electricity bills, which were challenged before this Court under Article 226. The petitioner also filed a special suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 along with an application under section 41 of the said Act. The petitioner had also invoked the provisions of sections 24 (2) and 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with section 76 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner all the bills that were raised from time to time from the month of August, 1996 till August, 1997 were inflated and exorbitant and were challenged in accordance with the provisions of sections 24 (2) and 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
( 4 ) WITH regard to the electricity bills for the month of July, 1987 and Augusi, 1987, the petitioner filed a writ application before this hon'ble Court on 14th October, 1987. An order was passed, inter alia, directing the some ad hoc payments subject to final determination by the Chief Electrical Inspector. Pursuant to the said order the Chief electrical Inspector, West Bengal, referred the matter to the Deputy chief Electrical Inspector to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and after hearing the parties the impugned order was passed.
( 5 ) THIS application has been challenged on behalf of the WBSEB mainly on the ground of maintainability and no submissions on merit was made.
( 6 ) THEREFORE, the question which is required to be decided is whether the impugned award passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector could be challenged in an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 instead of preferring an appeal in terms of section 36 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the respective contentions of the parties it is necessary to examine some of the provisions of the Electricity Act as well as the Electricity Supply Act. For the sake of the convenience sections 24, 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 and section 76 of the electricity Supply Act, 1948 set out as here under :-"section 24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge.- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until, such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. (2) Where any difference or dispute which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this se
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
