Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain is owner and occupant of property bearing No. 47/3, Jonapur, Vindhyachal Farms, Mehrauli which is energized by an electricity connection through licensee BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent-distcom, for short).

2. Petitioner claims that after installation of the electronic meter, he started receiving exorbitant bills w.e.f. 28th February, 2003. He relies upon consumption pattern from 30th December, 2001 onwards. As per the said consumption pattern, the maximum consumption was of 1930 units in February, 2002 but w.e.f. 28th February, 2003 the consumption for each billing circle was between 6596-10638 units. The petitioner, however, paid these bills. On 18th February, 2004 he received an electricity bill of Rs. 79,370/- on the basis of consumption of 19832 units between the period October, 2003 to February, 2004. Subsequently, he also received another bill showing consumption of 9517 units for the period February-April, 2004. On 20th March, 2004 he wrote to respondent-distcom to change the electricity meter. In this letter he gave details of the earlier billing pattern and stated that the electricity meter was running fast and not recording correct reading as per actual consumption.

3. On 24th April, 2004 the electricity meter was inspected and tested by the respondent-distcom and was found to be running fast by 5.07%. I need not in this case examine the question whether the electricity meter was faulty and defective as both the parties admit that the error of +5.07% recorded and found at the time of inspection is beyond permissible limits.

4. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent-distcom did not correct the bill and thereafter issued a disconnection notice dated 5th August, 2004, which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the electricity bill in question because it was raised on the basis of a faulty meter. The respondent-distcom on the other hand, have stated that the petitioner is liable to pay the electricity bill for the period in question after reducing the consumption as recorded by 5.07% i.e. for 18225 units.

5. Both the parties have relied upon The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards-Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, for short) as the said Regulations were applicable at the given point of time. Relevant Regulations being nos. 19, 20 and 21 (excluding the portion which is not relevant), read as under:

19. Testing of meters.- (i) The licensee shall conduct periodical inspection/testing and calibration of the meters as per Rule 57 of Electricity Rules, in the following manner:

(a) Periodicity of meter tests

The licensee shall observe following time schedule for regular meter testing:

Category Interval of testingNDMC, MES, Railways 6 months Bulk supply meters (HT) 1 yearLT meters (11kW-100kW) 3 yearsLT meters (up to 11 kW) 6 years

Wherever applicable, CT and PT shall also be tested along with meters.

.(b) When the meter is found to be fast beyond limits specified in Rule 57(1) of the Electricity Rules, the licensee/consumer, as the case may be, shall replace/rectify the defective meter within 30 days of testing. The licensee shall adjust/refund the excess amount collected on account of the said defect, based on percentage error, for a period not more than 6 months from the date of test and charge the cost of replacement/repair of the meter in the next bill sent to the consumer.

.(c) When the meter is found to be slow beyond permissible limits, as specified in Rule 57(1) of the Electricity Rules and the consumer does not dispute the accuracy of the test, the licensee/consumer, as the case may be, shall replace/rectify the defective meter within 30 days of testing. The consumer shall pay the difference due to the defect