Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
M/s. Dayal Steels Ltd., Ramgarh through its Managing Director, Bijay Kumar Harlalka - Petitioner
Vs.
Jharkhand State Electricity regulatory Commission through its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 5102 of 2008 with W.P.(C) No. 3650 of 2010
Decided on : 19.02.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Ughal, Mr. T. Kabiraj
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondents to raise bills in case of a defective meter as per the provisions of Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply Code - Defective Meters - 11.3, 42 - The court discussed the provisions of Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under section 42. The interpretation of the clause and its application in the case influenced the court's decision to quash the bills and order the respondents to raise fresh bills in accordance with the Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged electricity bills on the grounds of defective meter and non-compliance with Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were required to raise bills based on the average consumption of the last 12 months in case of a defective meter, as per Clause 11.3 of the Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and the availability of alternative remedies under section 42.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents were obligated to raise bills in accordance with Clause 11.3 of the Code and rejected the contention of alternative remedy based on the admitted facts by the respondents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ applications, quashed the bills, and granted liberty to the respondents to raise fresh bills within three months in compliance with Clause 11.3.1 of the Code.
In the aforesaid two writ applications, common question of facts and law arose, therefore, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. It appears that respondents Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DVC') raised a bill of Rs. 2.66 Crore on 06. 06. 2008 (Annexure-S.A.-1) for the period commencing from 01.05.2008 to 16.05.2008 on average basis. The aforesaid bill challenged by the petitioner vide WPC No. 3277 of 2008, on the ground that no notice given to the petitioner before declaring that the meter, installed in the premises of petitioner, has become defective. The petitioner further challenged the bill on the ground that the same has not been raised according to the provision of Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), which provides that in case of defective meter, the bill can be raised on the basis of average consumption of last 12 months immediately preceding the month in which the meter was last read. It is further contended that it is imperative for the respondent to send the meter for testing before a third party agency nominated by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as JSERC). It appears that during the pendency of aforesaid writ application, petitioner paid Rs. 1.8 crore to the respondent towards the bill amount. It is worth mentioning that aforesaid writ application disposed of by a bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2008 (Annexure-3) whereby and whereunder respondents were directed to send the meter to any of the three agencies, notified by the JSERC, with prior intimation to the petitioner. It is further ordered that if petitioner so desire, may remain present before the agency, at the time of testing of the meter.
3. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, respondents sent the meter to M/s National Physical laboratory, New Delhi for necessary testing. It is also not out of place to mention here that the respondents gave prior intimation to the petitioner as directed by this Court. It then appears that the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi after testing the meter concluded vide Annexure-7/1 that the meter was not functioning correctly. Thus, according to it the meter was defective. Thereafter respondents vide order dated 03.06.2010 intimated this petitioner that since the meter was found defective, therefore, the earlier bill raised on 16.6.2008 was correct. Hence, petitioner pay rest of the amount. This letter is impugned in WPC No. 3650 of 2010.
4. The petitioner has challenged another four bills in WPC No. 5102 of 2008, issued on 09.09.2008, 03.10.2008, 03.11.2008 and 04.12.2008, which relates for the following periods i.e. 02.08.2008 to 31.8.2008, 01.09.2008 to 30.09.2008, 01.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 and 01.11.2008 to 30.11.2008 respectively. These bills also challenged on the ground that the same were issued in contravention of provision contained in Clause 11.3 of the Code.
5. It is submitted by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents in WPC No. 3277 of 2008 filed a counter affidavit and stated at paragraph no. 15, that they are bound by the Code framed by the JSERC. He further submitted that in the said writ application, respondents admitted that they will send the meter for testing to the independent agency and after receipt of the report they will raise fresh bill. It is submitted that as per the direction of this Court the meter sent to the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi for necessary testing and its report received, which shows that the meter was defective. Accordingly it is submitted that now respondents are require to raise fresh bill according to Clause 11.3 of the 'Code', but in stead of doing so respondents issued Annexure-8 (WPC 3650/2010) and claimed that earlier bill raised on 16.6.2008 was correct.
6. Sri Ajit Kumar submits that as per 2nd proviso of Clause 11.3 of the 'Code', in case of defective meter, it is i
