Back
2014 Supreme(Chh) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
Beekey Hygiene Products – Appellants
Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2805 of 1993
Decided On : 30.6.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ganesh Ahuja and Ashish Sharma.
For Respondents/Defendant: Majid Ali.
Headnote:
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 26 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Notice of, non-payment of charges and disconnection - Whether Electricity Board was justified in raising supplementary electricity bill without referring matter to Electrical Inspector - Officers of Board however, proceeded to raise a supplementary bill vide impugned communication wherein it was stated that after replacement of defective CT/PT unit energy consumption has been c but as in respect of the previous period, incorrect recording was taking place in the defective meter, a supplementary bill amounting to respect of the period from has been raised petitioner, however, disputed and vide his communication disputed supplementary electricity bill and requested the authorities to withdraw the same with a further request to draw a supplementary bill in a just and proper manner request of petitioner was not accepted with result that vide impugned notice a notice of, non-payment of charges and disconnection of electricity supply was issued - This action of the respondent has given rise to the present petition – Held, decision of the Division Bench of High Court of case only fortifies the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that proper course of action should have been to refer the matter for adjudication to the Electrical Inspector as provided under Section 26(6) - As an upshot of above discussion, Court considered view that the action of the respondents in proceeding to raise supplementary bill against the petitioner and threatening disconnection on account of non-payment of such bill is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 26(6) of Act of - Therefore, the impugned demand letter and notice of disconnection are declared illegal and inoperative in law and therefore, set aside - It is clear that the only function of the PT in a given case like the present where the power is being supplied to respondent Volts is to reduce it to 110 Volts so as to enable the meter to record the amount of power which is consumed by the industry - It is common ground that the existing meter could not record the power consumed unless there was stepping down of the voltage - This stepping down was done by PT. It is also not in dispute that after the recording of the consumption by meter the power, which was reduced from Volts, is not used by respondent - This clearly shows that the only function of was to enable the ascertaining or regulating of the amount of energy supplied to respondent - This instrument namely has, therefore, to be regarded as a meter in view of provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 26 and second proviso, in particular, and therefore High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Electrical Inspector had jurisdiction to exercise his powers under Section 26(7) of the Act order of the appellate authority therefore was rightly set aside - Petition allowed
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the supplementary bill raised by the respondent/Board vide impugned memo dated 11/06/1992 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has also assailed the correctness and validity of notice of disconnection dated 24/06/1993 (Annexure P/2). Quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner is an industrial consumer who was provided electricity connection by the respondent/Board. During the period of consumption of electricity for industrial use by the petitioner, an inspection was carried out by the authorities of the Board on 17/08/1991 and the officers of the Board found the current transformer/potential transformer, defective and not giving correct recording of consumption. As the pleadings and documents placed on record goes to show, the respondent/Board intimated this fact to the petitioner and the petitioner vide his communication dated 30/01/1992 (Annexure P/7) raised protest. Though initially certain communications were made by the Board expressing its inability to install new CT/PT unit, communication dated 28/02/1992 (Annexure P/10) shows that a new CT/PT unit had become available with the Board and the same was replaced on 19/02/1992.
2. The officers of the Board however, proceeded to raise a supplementary bill vide impugned communication (Annexure P/1) dated 11/06/1992 wherein, it was stated that after replacement of defective CT/PT unit, energy consumption has been recorded correctly but as in respect of the previous period, incorrect recording was taking place in the defective meter, a supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 7,00,849/- in respect of the period from January, 1990 to February, 1992 has been raised. The petitioner, however, disputed and vide his communication dated 22/06/1992 (Annexure P/13) disputed supplementary electricity bill and requested the authorities to withdraw the same with a further request to draw a supplementary bill in a just and proper manner. The request of the petitioner was not accepted with the result that vide impugned notice dated 24/06/1993, a notice of, non-payment of charges and disconnection of electricity supply was issued. This action of the respondent has given rise to the present petition.
3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the respondents' action raising supplementary bill, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in raising supplementary bill and thereafter, threatening disconnection on non-payment of the said supplementary bill is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act of 1910). It is argued that the respondent proceeded to raise supplementary bill without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. According to him, once a meter is found defective and a dispute is raised, it is obligatory on the part of the Electrical Inspector to refer the matter for adjudication of Electrical Inspector before raising any supplementary bill. Without such course of action having been adopted, the action of the respondents is illegal and unauthorized. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on several authorities Hamidullah Khan, Jabalpur vs. Chairman. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur and Others, AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 1, Smt. Basantibai vs. M.P. Electricity Board Indore and Others, AIR 1985 MP 70, H.D. Shourie vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, AIR 1987 Delhi 219, M/s. Regal Theatre and Others vs. MPEB, Rampur and Others, AIR 1987 Madhya Pradesh 276, M/s. Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd. Mysore vs. Chairman, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Another, AIR 1991 Karnataka 345, MPEB and Others vs. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71, U.P.S.E.B. vs. Atma Steels and Others, (1998) 2 SCC 597: AIR 1998 SC 846, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking vs. Laffans (I)
