Allahabad High Court
Shree Lakshmi Ice Mills, Muzaffarnagar vs Executive Engineer, Electricity ... on 23 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987ALL115, AIR 1987 ALLAHABAD 115, (1986) ALL WC 1065
JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J.
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned bills of demand in respect of electricity consumed by the petitioner.
2. Shortly stated the petitioner's case is that under the impugned bills the respondents are demanding from the petitioner an amount which is far in excess of the actual consumption as indicated by the meter fixed by the respondent. It is contended that the respondent is not entitled to demand any amount in Excess of the electricity consumption as indicated by the meter installed by the respondent.
3. In the counter-affidavit, the stand taken is that the respondent discovered from a reading of the meter fixed on the premises of the petitioner Mills that the actual consumption indicated by the meter was far below the real consumption. It was found that the main meter installed in the petitioner mill's premises for recording power consumption was running slow as compared to actual consumption of electricity. A check meter was consequently installed by the respondent on 17-6-77 in the presence of the representative of the petitioner Mills for testing the accuracy of the meter installed at the electrical installation of the petitioner. This check meter was allowed to run from 17-6-77 to 8-7-77 and was taken off again in the presence of the representative of the petitioner.
4. With the help of the check meter, it was discovered that the main meter installed in the electrical installation of the petitioner Mills was running 275% slow as compared to its actual consumption. Consequently, the respondent sent to the petitioner a revised bill calculated on the basis of the readings as reflected by the check meter. The impugned revised bills were thus perfectly legal and accurate and had been worked out in accordance with the agreement which has been entered into between the petitioner and the erstwhile licensees.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 submitted that the respondent could not make any demand on the basis of the readings reflected by the check meter installed by it. It was legally bound by the readings of the meter installed by itself. It was urged that, in any case, a dispute having arisen as regards the accuracy of the bills, the respondent ought to have referred the same for the adjudication of the Electrical Inspector in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 26.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in the contention. Clause 19 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent's predecessor, namely, the erstwhile licensee provides : --
"19. Inaccurate :-- Every meter is checked by the Board before installed. A meter may be re-checked at any time by the Board at its own discretion or upon request by the consumer. In the latter case the consumer will be required to pay the charge for this service as set forth in the Scale of charges. Should it be found that a meter has not registered accurately within the limits laid down in the Indian Electricity Rules the testing charge paid by the consumer will be refunded and the Board will charge for the electricity used on the basis of the comparative readings of the faulty meter and a check meter which will be installed by the Board for a period of not less than 14 days. The Board will make the necessary adjustments in the next ensuing bill in accordance with the results obtained. Where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of energy consumed or the accuracy of the meter be referred to the Electric Inspector of Government, by either the Board or the consumer; in the latter case the Board must be advised".
7. It is clear that the respondent has acted in terms of Clause 19 in fixing the check meter and making the necessary adjustment in the next ensuing bill in accordance with the result obtained from the reading of the check meter. It is also apparent from a plain reading of Clause 19 of the agreement as well as Section 26(6) of the aforesaid Act that the respondent was not obliged to refer the dispute before making the necessary adjustment in the bills on discovering that the main meter fixed in the premises of the petitioner company was defective and was not reflecting the actual consumption of the petitioner truly and correctly. As provided by Clause 19, the respondent was perfectly within its rights in fixing a check meter in order to ascertain whether the meter fixed on the premises of the petitioner concerned was working properly. There is no provision either in Clause 19 of the agreement or Section 26(6) of the Act which obliges the respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication of the Electrical Inspector before making the necessary adjustment on the basis of the reading of the check meter. If, however, the petitioner felt that the bills submitted after making necessary adjustment in accordance with Clause 19 of the agreement were excessive and if he desired to raise a dispute, it was open to the petitioner to make an application for reference of the dispute either under Clause 19 or under Section 26(6) of the Act. That remedy is still available to the petitioner, in our opinion, as we do not find that there is any period of limitation prescribed therefor. Even if, there is such a period of limitation prescribed, we think that the respondent will consider and take into account the fact that this petition was filed in this court in 1977 and has been pending ever since even though the petitioner had approached this court at the earliest. Consequently, if the petitioner makes an application for reference of the dispute for the adjudication of the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) or in terms of the Clause 19 of the agreement the Electrical Inspector may consider the same and adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law.
8. With these observations, the petition is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. The interim orders passed by this court from time to time are vacated.