The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a supplementary bill for revised electricity consumption without adjudication from the Electrical Inspector as required by section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, is illegal and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the memorandum dated 31.08.2000 (Annex P-l) and the accompanying supplementary bill (Annex P-2) issued by the respondents whereby a demand of Rs. 31,33,532/- has been raised against the petitioner after revising the electricity consumption of the petitioner for the period August, 1998 to June, 1999. The petitioner has further sought a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply to his factory premises.

2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is runs an induction furnace since 1993 and manufacturers mild steel ingots. For carrying on the manufacturing activity, the petitioner has an electricity connection bearing no. LS-15 with connected sanctioned load of 2000 K.W. from the Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity "the Board"), and is a licensee under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner states that it has regularly paid all the electricity bills raised by the Board from time to time. The electricity meter at the factory premises of the petitioner has been installed by the Board, for which the petitioner pays rent. The responsibility of maintaining the electricity meter and to ensure that it remains in working condition is on the Board. In the month of July 1998, the Current Transformer/Potential Transformer (CT/PT) unit of the metering requirement at the factory premises of the petitioner became defective and could not record actual consumption of electricity. Even though the Board was aware that the CT/PT unit of the metering requirement was defective, it changed the same in June, 1999. In order to cover the delay, the Board through respondent No.2 issued memorandum No.3617 dated 31.08.2000 (Annex P-l) revising the consumption of the petitioner from the month of August, 1998 to June, 1999 and raised a demand of Rs.31,33,532/-. Along with the memorandum, respondent no.2 raised a supplementary bill (Annex P-2) for the said amount and gave 15 days time to the petitioner to deposit the amount, failing which it was mentioned that the electricity connection of the petitioner will be liable to be disconnected without any further notice. Aggrieved against the issuance of memorandum dated 31.08.2000 (Annex P-l) and supplementary bill (Annex P-2), the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

3. At the preliminary stage, this Court, after hearing the petitioner on 14.09.2000, issued notice of motion to the respondents and granted stay of disconnection of electric supply subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount in dispute with the Punjab State Electricity Board before 15.11.2000. This Court further directed that in case the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the interim stay shall stand automatically vacated. The deposit was made.

4. Upon being served, the respondents appeared and filed their response. The respondents raised preliminary submissions as well as contested the writ petition on merits. The respondents admitted that electricity connection bearing Account No. LS-15 was sanctioned by it in the premises of the petitioner for running of the furnace. The CT/PT unit installed in the premises of the petitioner became defective on 15.07.1998 due to damage of CT/PT box and actual consumption could not be recorded in the meter. An intimation was received from the petitioner vide letter dated 15.07.1998 that the CT/PT unit was damaged on 15.07.1998 and that new CT/PT unit cannot be arranged immediately and it was requested that supply of electricity be made direct. Accordingly, the electric supply was provided directly by the respondents vide permit no.33 dated 15.07.1998, which was filled in by the Junior Engineer concerned. As per report dated 03.08.1998 recorded by the officials of the Board and duly signed by the representative of the petitioner, it was mentioned that the readin