IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Date of decision: 05.09.2025 Punjab State Electricity Board through the Executive Engineer …Appellant Versus M/s Ajanta Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh.

…Respondent CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. S.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate For respondent.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The defendant has approached this Court challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for declaration, permanent, and mandatory injunction, which was decreed by the Trial Court on 15.05.1991. The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal on 17.12.1994, thereby affirming the decree.

3. The plaintiff, a consumer of the defendants with sanctioned load of 328 KVA under account No. 61003 at Mandi Gobindgarh, alleged that electricity bills had consistently been raised on the basis of meter readings taken monthly by the defendants’ officials. However, vide bill No. 20, payable by 24/25.03.1987, the defendants raised a demand of ₹87,778/- towards energy charges and ₹20,976/- as electricity duty, alleging that the meter was running slow. The plaintiff contended that such allegation was never communicated earlier, and if the meter was suspected to be defective, it was mandatorily required to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

On this premise, the plaintiff sought the reliefs claimed.

4. The defendants resisted the suit, alleging that on checking, the plaintiff was found using unauthorized load of 527.463 KW, justifying the impugned bill.

5. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court concurred.

6. Before this Court, the defendant argued that it was a case of theft of energy, and therefore, no reference to the Electrical Inspector was necessary.

7. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, however, provides the statutory scheme. Sub-section (1) stipulates that energy supplied is to be ascertained by a correct meter. Sub-section (6) mandates that if a dispute arises as to whether the meter is correct, the same must be referred to the Electrical Inspector, whose decision is binding, subject to the limited six-month period for reassessment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai (AIR 1988 SC 71) and the Bombay High Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (AIR 1985 Bom 415) have categorically held that until such reference is made, the supply authority cannot unilaterally assess consumption or raise additional demands.

8. The First Appellate Court, relying on the above principle, found that the bill in question had been raised treating the meter as defective without any reference to the Electrical Inspector. If unauthorized load was being used, the plaintiff could only be subjected to load surcharge in accordance with the PSEB’s instructions. But once the defendants themselves proceeded on the footing that the meter was defective, compliance with Section 26(6) was mandatory.

9. Since no such statutory reference was made, the impugned bill was without authority of law. The Courts below, therefore, rightly decreed the suit.

10. As such, this Court finds no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

05.09.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No