IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
VINOD KUMAR JAIN …. Petitioner.
VERSUS
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED …. Respondent.
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 24041/ 2005
Decided On : April 30th , 2008.
Electricity Rules - Interpretation - Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 - [57]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition involving the interpretation of Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 regarding when an electricity meter can be regarded as defective.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the IS 13779/1999 as amended up-to-date is applicable for determining whether a meter is defective under Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956. The court also directed the respondents to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner on the basis of the new meter installed after 27th December 2005.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956, applicability of IS 13779/1999, and determination of meter defectiveness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the specifications fixed in IS 13779/1999 as the benchmark to decide whether a meter is defective. It also emphasized the need for a speaking order based on the new meter installed after 27th December 2005.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, and the court directed the respondents to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner on the basis of the new meter installed after 27th December 2005.
1. The petitioner Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain has filed this writ petition, which involves interpretation of Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 as to when an electricity meter can be regarded as defective.
2. The respondents in their counter affidavit to the writ petition did not raise any objection as to maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground of alternative remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, being available to the petitioner but during the course of arguments an objection to this effect was raised. However, I am not inclined to entertain the said objection at this belated stage as the writ petition was filed in 2005. Moreover, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and a Writ Court has discretion, whether or not to entertain the Writ or relegate the parties to take recourse to alternative remedy. As legal interpretation of Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 arises for consideration, I do not think it will be appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy and at this belated stage relegate the parties and force them to go before the Grievance Forum and Ombudsman and thereafter approach this Court.
3. Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956, reads as under:-
“57. Meters, maximum demand indicators and other apparatus on consumer’s premises.- (1) Any meter or maximum demand indicator or other apparatus placed upon a consumer’s premises in accordance with section 26 shall be of appropriate capacity and shall be deemed to be correct if its limits of error are within the limits specified in the relevant Indian Standard Specification and where no such specification exists, the limits of error do not exceed 3 per cent above or below absolute accuracy at all loads in excess of one tenth of full load and up to full load:
[Provided that for extra high voltage consumers the limit of error shall be + 1 per cent.]
(2) No meter shall register at no load.
(3) Every supplier shall provide and maintain in proper condition such suitable apparatus as may be prescribed or approved by the Inspector for the examination, testing and regulation of meters used or intended to be used in connection with the supply of energy:
Provided that the supplier may with the approval of the Inspector and shall, if required by the Inspector, enter into a joint arrangement with any other supplier for the purpose aforesaid.
(4) Every supplier shall examine, test and regulate all meters, maximum demand indicators and other apparatus for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied before their first installation at the consumer’s premises and at such other intervals as may be directed by the State Government in this behalf.
(5) Every supplier shall maintain a register of meters showing the date of the last test, the error recorded at the time of the test, the limit of accuracy after adjustment and final test, the date of installation, withdrawal, reinstallation, etc., for the examination of the Inspector or his authorized representative.
[(6) Where the supplier has failed to examine, test and regulate the meters and keep records thereof as aforesaid, the Inspector may cause such meters to be tested and sealed at the cost of the owner of the meters in case these are found defective.]”
4. Rule 57(1) stipulates in plain and simple words that a meter shall be placed upon a consumer’s premises for recording consumption of electricity and shall be deemed to be correct, if the limit of error is within the limits as specified under the relevant Indian Standard Specification and if no such specification exists, the limits of error should not exceed 3% (or 1% in case of high voltage consumers) above or below absolute accuracy at all loads in excess of 1/10th of the full load. The first part of the aforesaid Rule states that a meter would be deemed to be correct, if the errors are within the specified limits as are fixed by Indian Standard Specifications. Where Indian Standard Specifications
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.