Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 1885
High Court Of Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat
BIMLA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
NORTH DELHI POWER CO.LTD. - Respondents
WP 8463 Of 2006
Decided On : 10/16/2006
H.L.Karma, Sudhir Nandrajog
The court emphasized the requirement for electricity companies to bill consumers in a rational manner based on actual consumption and connected load, and to apply appropriate factors while raising the bill.
Headnote:
Electricity Bills - Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity - Delhi Electricity reforms Act, 2000, Electricity Act, 2003 - Regulation 26 (iv), Regulation 30 (i)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenge electricity bills issued by NDPL on allegations of dishonest abstraction of electricity. The petitioners allege that the bills were exaggerated and untenable, and NDPL disconnected electricity supply to their premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that NDPL acted contrary to law in billing the petitioners on the basis of sanctioned load when the connected load was lower. The court held that NDPL was bound to first calculate the total actual consumption, exclude them while computing consumption, and then apply the appropriate factor while raising the bill.
Issues: The issues included the correctness of billing on the basis of sanctioned load, the methodology for calculating consumption, and the application of DAE charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that NDPL acted contrary to law in billing the petitioners on the basis of sanctioned load when the connected load was lower. NDPL was required to calculate the total actual consumption, exclude them while computing consumption, and then apply the appropriate factor while raising the bill.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were partly allowed, the impugned bills were quashed, and NDPL was directed to prepare the bills afresh within 2 weeks.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
( 1 ) THE writ petitioners in these proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge electricity bills issued by the north Delhi Power Co. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as NDPL) on allegations of dishonest abstraction of electricity (DAE ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner in WP 6104 of 2006 has a business in the premises A-11, lawrence Road Industrial Area, New Delh. These premises are served by electricity connection being K. No. 3210 3131842. The business is carried out in the name and style M/s. Ajanta Food Industries. The petitioner in WP 8463 of 2006 too, is carrying on business in the same premises; in its case, it is manufacturing plastic pellets. The electricity meter in question in its premises is No. 321006015972. The meters in both the writ petitions were installed in 1988.
( 3 ) SOME time in April 2003, pursuant to an agreement or understanding entered into between the four industries situated in the same premises mainly a-11 Lawrence Road, a 400 KW transformer check-meter was installed by the ndpl. The electricity connection to the other industrial unit, M/s. M. G. Polyblinds were energized on 1. 8. 2003.
( 4 ) IT is alleged by both the petitioners that some time in June 2004 there was a complaint regarding stop Page of electricity supply. NDP officials had stated that there were some service line faults which required repairs/replacement of cables. In the background of the petitioners' complaints, an inspection appears to have been carried out on 3 July, 2004 by the NDPL officials. It is alleged that the officials were not authorized to do so, but had reached the premises only for the purpose of restoring electricity which had stopped, on account of the service line fault noticed by the petitioners on 26th of June, 2003.
( 5 ) BOTH the petitioners state the meters were found to be in order in every way along with the meters seal boxes and it is alleged that performance of the meters could not be checked as the electricity supply had been disconnected from the ndpl LV mains. Yet, the same day a show-cause notice was issued to by NDPL requiring the petitioners to reply by 8th July, 2004 on allegations of dishonest abstraction of electricity. This was followed closely by the Bill dated 8th July, 2004 issued on the basis of the same allegations. It is claimed that the notices issued on 3rd July, 2004 were replied to a 12th of July, 2004 by both the petitioners.
( 6 ) ON 13th of December 2005 the NDPL issued a speaking order and raised a final bill. The petitioners represented against the speaking order and also the final bill. They allege illegality in both the documents pointing out that the bills were exaggerated and untenable. On 20th February, 2006 the NDPL disconnected electricity supply to the premises of both the petitioners. After giving issuing reminders and the representation, which were of no avail, the petitioners approached this Court, in these proceedings.
( 7 ) IT is averred that the allegation of dishonest abstraction of electricity is unfounded and wrong. The petitioners placed reliance on the previous consumption pattern of electricity before the disputed period and stated that these do not show any marked distortion or fall in the consumption patterns to justify a conclusion of dishonest abstraction of electricity. It is also claimed that the meter in both the cases were found intact as is evident from a reading of the inspection reports. The petitioners allege that after the installation of the transformer meter there is a perfectly scientific basis of assessing actual consumption, which is recorded by the said transformer meter. As the actual consumption could be evaluated, on the basis of an objective yardstick there could be no recourse to notional consumption pattern, for the concerned period.
( 8 ) IT is stated that in WP 6104/ 2006 the NDPL has billed on the basis of the sanctioned load which was much higher than the actual connected load. The sanctioned l
