Back
2012 Supreme(Guj) 289
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi
Polylink Polymers (India) Ltd.
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 5448 of 2002—Decided on 15/06/2012
Appearance :
Mr. K.B. Pujara, for the Petitioner No. 1.
Government Pleader, for the Respondent No. 1.
Rule Served, for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.B. Vakil, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, for the Respondent No. 3.
Singhi & Co., for the Respondent No. 4.
Rule Served by D.S., for the Respondent No. 5.
Whether in the facts of the case revised supplementary bill issued by GEB is proper and sustainable.
Headnote:Head Note :
[Indian] Electricity Act, 1910 (Central Act 9 of 1910) — Section 26(6) — Dispute raised with regard correctness of meter — Electric Inspector on test found of meter running slow by 39.84% and ordered to issue fresh supplementary bill — Accordingly GEB issued revised supplementary bill — Appeal against before State Government dismissed — Propriety of — Finding as to — On dispute raised with regard correctness of meter, Electricity Inspector was required to carry out two things — One is with respect to the degree of slowness of meter and second is the period not exceeding six months during which meter might have malfunctions — In the case electric Inspector was not justified to permit GEB to raise supplementary bill for a period of six months on basis of his finding of slow running of meter without finding when such defect would have developed — The Electrical Inspector himself has stated that it was not possible to ascertain the period — The consumer can not be saddled with additional charges without concrete material on record when accuracy of meter was not checked by GEB before instalation — In the facts as a result the Court allowed the petition and quashed the revised supplementary bill issued by GEB.
Held :
The Electrical Inspector gravely erred in permitting the GEB officials to raise supplementary bill for a period of six months on the basis of his finding of slow running of the meter. Even if one fully accepts his conclusion that the meter was running slow by 39.84%, the period during which immediately prior to 12.7.96 such defect would have developed has never come on record. The Electrical Inspector himself concluded that it was not possible to ascertain the period. Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act required the Electrical Inspector to judge not only the degree of slowness, but also the period not exceeding six months when such recording would have prevailed. The consumer cannot be saddled with additional charges without concrete material on record particularly when the Electrical Inspector held that the accuracy of the meter was not checked by GEB before installation though required under the rules.
[Para 12]
In the result, the petition is allowed. [Para 13]
Law Laid Down :
Dispute as to the correctness of the meter can be raised by either party but where no dispute raised reading recorded by meter bind parties.
Akil Kureshi, J.—This petition has been filed by one Polylink Polymers (India) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner company has challenged the supplementary bills issued by the Electricity Company as also the order dated 6.2.97 passed by the Electrical Inspector as upheld by the Appellate order dated 17.4.2002. Facts may be noted in brief.
2. The petitioner is a consumer of high tension electricity installed by the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short), now succeeded by the Utter Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Such connection was activated on 7.7.1995. The Gujarat Electricity Board had installed Electronic Trivector Static meter manufactured by L & T Ltd. On 12.7.1996, officers of GEB checked the meter installed at the factory premises of the petitioner Company and found that the meter was running slow by 40.54%. On 16.7.1996, GEB officials once again visited the premises of the petitioner Company and took meter readings. On all three occasions, the meter was found running slow by 32.35, 39.01 and 36.14 respectively. On 1.10.1996, GEB officials installed a new static meter and took the parallel readings of both the meters and found that the original meter was running slow by 40.20%.
2.1 On 1.11.96, GEB issued a supplementary bill of Rs. 8,34,690.29 ps. Such bill was raised on the basis of slow running of the mater by 40.54% for the entire period of 15 months from the date of installation, i.e. 7.7.95 to 1.10.96. The petitioner challenged such supplementary bill before the Electrical Inspector by raising dispute about the correctness of the meter under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. On 17.12.96, the Electrical Inspector along with the officials of the GEB visited the site and tested the old meter and found it to be running slow by 39.84%.
2.2 The Electrical Inspector vide his order dated 6.2.97 decided the petitioner’s dispute with respect to the supplementary bill. The Electricity Inspector held that the meter was running slow by 39.84% but that supplementary bill can be raised only for a period of six months anterior to 12.7.96 i.e. date on which the slow running of the meter was detected. He, therefore, directed the GEB to issue fresh supplementary bill on the basis of slow running of the meter by 39.84% and confining such additional charges for a period between 12.1.96 and 12.7.96.
2.3 Dissatisfied by such order of the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government. In the meantime, acting on the order of the Electrical Inspector, GEB issued a revised bill of Rs. 5,73,919.96 ps. on 25.2.97. Yet again, GEB authorities issued another supplementary bill for an amount of Rs. 5,69,287.68 ps. on 21.5.97 presumably in supercession of the previous supplementary bill. The petitioner had approached this Court more than once at the interim stages. However, it is not necessary to burden this order with the details of such litigation. The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed by order dated 17.4.2002. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel Shri K.B. Pujara for the petitioner vehemently contended that the GEB committed grave error in issuing supplementary bill. He submitted that there was no accurate information with respect to the slowness of the meter and the period during which such meter would have malfunctioned.
3.1 Counsel submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it was the duty of the GEB to raise the dispute with respect to the correctness of the meter if it was not satisfied about the same. Such dispute had to be decided by the Electrical Inspector before any supplementary bill could be issued. In the present case, in total disregard of the statutory provisions, supplementary bill was issued without any adjudication on the question of slowness of the meter.
3.2 Counsel further submitted that the meter was checked and certified before installation. Slowness in recording consumption
