Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and B. C. Varma, J.
HAMIDULLAH KHAN, JABALPUR - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD, RAMPUR, - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 564 Of 1981
Decided On : 07/22/1982
ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTION 26(1), 26(2), 26(4), 26(6) - METER READING - DISPUTE - REFERENCE TO ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR - CONCLUSIVE PROOF - REVISED BILL - VALIDITY - ELECTRICITY BOARD'S POWER TO DISCONNECT SUPPLY - SECTION 24(1), 24(2) - SCHEDULE, CLAUSE VI(3) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consumer of electricity, challenged the revised demand raised by the Electricity Board for the period from 11th Sept. 1974 to June 1979, claiming that the meters installed were not defective and were illegally removed without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector as required under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Board could not unilaterally remove the meters and install a check meter without getting the dispute about the correctness of the meters determined by the Electrical Inspector as per the proviso to Section 26(4). The Board's revised bill for five years was unjustified as the Electrical Inspector could only revise the estimate for a period not exceeding six months under Section 26(6). The court also clarified that the conclusive nature of the meter reading, subject to the Electrical Inspector's decision and in the absence of fraud, was binding on both parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Electricity Board could unilaterally remove the meters and install a check meter without referring the dispute about the correctness of the meters to the Electrical Inspector? 2. Whether the Board's revised bill for five years was valid? 3. Which party had the burden of making a reference to the Electrical Inspector in case of a dispute regarding the correctness of the meter?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, specifically provides that a dispute regarding the correctness of a meter can only be resolved by the Electrical Inspector. The Board's removal of the meters without referring the dispute to the Inspector contravened the proviso to Section 26(4). 2. The Board's revised bill for five years was unjustified as the Electrical Inspector could only revise the estimate for a period not exceeding six months under Section 26(6). 3. The party who challenges the meter reading has to make a reference to the Electrical Inspector. The meter reading, subject to the Electrical Inspector's decision and in the absence of fraud, is conclusive and final between the parties.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition, quashing the demand of Rs. 18,123.87 made by the Board by Annexure-A and the demand of Rs. 26,249.37 by Annexure-C and the notice for recovery Annexure-E to the extent of Rs. 18,123.87. The petitioner was awarded costs of the petition.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a consumer of electricity. He runs an ice factcty for which he obtained service connection No. 303768/9 of 15 Horse Power load. By letter dated 29th June, 1979 (Annexure A) the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 18,123. 87, being the revised demand for the period from 11th Sept. , 1974 to June, 1979 on account of charges for consumption of electricity as explained in letter dated 30th June, 1979 (Annexure R-2 ). There was thereafter a further demand of Rs. 8,113. 50 for the period from June, 1979 to Jan, 1980. A consolidated demand of Rs. 26,249. 37 was then issued which is Annexure-C. On the failure of the petitioner to pay this amount, proceedings for recovery of the demand as arrears of land revenue were started. A notice was issued by the Tahsildar which is Annexure E. By this petition under Article 226 of the Board, Ra. . . Page 2 of 5 Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the demands Annexure A and C and the notice Annexure-E.
( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that there was a meter installed by the Electricity Board for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied to the petitioner. The meter belonged to the Board. The petitioner was paying the bills which were sent in accordance with the meter reading. The revised demand of Rs. 18,123. 87 for the period from 11th Sept. , 1974 to June, 1979 was issued for the reasons indicated by the Divisional Engineer in his letter dated 30th June, 1979 which is Annexure R-2. It is stated therein that meters installed in the petitioner's premises were replaced on 31st May, 1978 and 28th March, 1979 and as they were not recording the consumption correctly and digital figures were found disturbed, a new check meter was installed on 31st March, 1979 and the billing for the period from 11th Sept. , 1974 to June, 1979 was revised on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter. When the petitioner revised the revised demand, he gave a reply through his lawyer on 7th July, 1979 which is Annexure-B. In this reply, he contended that the meters earlier installed were not defective and they ware illegally removed. It was further stated that the Board could not make any revised demand without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same contentions before us and has argued that in the absence of any decision by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it was not open to the Board to make a revised demand.
( 3 ) SECTION 26 (1) provides that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter. The Board is a licencee for purposes of the Act. The meter was the property of the licensee. It is the duty of the licensee under Section 26 (2) to keep the meter correct and in default of doing so, the consumer ceases to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter for so long as the default continues. Section 26 (4) empowers the licensee or any person duly authorised by the licensee at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer of the intention to have access to and he at liberty to inspect and test and for that purpose, to take of and remove any meter. All reasonable expenses of and incidental to such inspecting, testing, taking off and removing, if the meter is found to be otherwise than correct, can be recovered from the consumer and where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of such reasonable expenses, the matter is to be referred to an Electrical Inspector whose decision is final. There is, however, an important proviso to Section 26 (4) which restricts the power to take off or remove the meter if a difference or dispute of the nature described in Section 26 (6) has arisen until the matter has been determined as therein provided. Section 2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
