Madhya Pradesh High Court
Magadh Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board And ... on 17 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)MPLJ12
Author: C.K. Prasad
Bench: C.K. Prasad
ORDER C.K. Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Application for quashing the letter dated 30-3-1996 (Annexure P/12) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,51,713.14/- (rupees one lakh fiftyone thousand seven hundred and thirteen and fourteen paise) as electrical charges failing which it has been threatened that the electrical line of the petitioner shall be disconnected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents that till decision on the dispute raised by the petitioner, before the Electrical Inspector, no revised bill be sent by respondents to the petitioner.
2. Facts giving rise to the present application, are that the petitioner is a small scale industrial unit and is a consumer of respondent. According to the petitioner on 17-11-1995, the premises of the petitioner was visited by respondent No. 3 and meter inspected. It is the stand of the petitioner that the aforesaid act of respondent No. 3 in making inspection was without following the mandate Under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and no prior information was given to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner further is that after the inspection, the respondents raised additional bill but it was never informed about the same and for the first time by the impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to make payment of additional electricity bill failing which the respondents threatened to disconnect the electrical line. It is the stand of the petitioner that he has raised dispute before the Electrical Inspector, Ujjain by filing an application on 3-4-1996 and as such the respondents are debarred from effecting disconnection of the electrical line till the decision by the Electrical Inspector.
3. The respondents have stated in their reply that on inspection it was found that the wire of Ill-phase meter have been removed. The meter was not recording the actual consumption. It has been further stated in the inspection report that after all the lines were restored the meter started moving on a forward direction and it is the stand of the respondents that there is no defect in the meter.
4. Shri Maheshwari in support of this Writ Application has made the following submissions:-
1. In his submission, the inspection of the meter of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 without prior information is not sanctioned by law. It is relevant here to state that respondents in the return have stated that the petitioner was informed about the inspection and in fact the inspection report has been signed by one of the employees of the petitioner and it is further contended that one of the signatories of the inspection report is the Director of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner has stated in the Writ Application that signature was obtained on a blank sheet but in view of the categorical denial of the respondent and further in view of the fact that signature of one of the Directors as also an employee of the petitioner, being present in the inspection report, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no information was given to the petitioner regarding inspection.
5. It is relevant here to state that Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 confers power on respondents to enter premises and remove fittings and other apparatus after informing the occupier of its intention. The signature of employees as also the Director, on inspection report clearly negatives the case of the petitioner that no information at all was given. The respondents have stated that inspection was made after giving information to the occupier, I am of the view that no violation of Section 20 of the Act, as contended by the petitioner, has taken place. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel.
6. Shri Maheshwari further submits that as the Electrical Inspector is in seisin of the matter, the respondents are precluded from raising additional bill or disconnecting the line of the petitioner. It is the stand of the petitioner that as the meter was not recording proper consumption, it shall be a defective meter and the petitioners having invoked the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector as provided Under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the respondent's action in raising additional bill and threatened disconnection are illegal.
7. In my opinion, the meter installed at the petitioner's premises cannot said to be a defective meter. In my opinion, incorrect recording of the consumption in meter, which is attributable to it, can only be said to be defect in meter. Inherent defect in the meter by which recording is affected in the meter that it can be construed as a defective meter. In case, the meter is not correctly recording the consumption because of any reason, foreign to the meter it cannot be said that the meter is defective. One can appreciate this position by reference to an example. A motor car's engine being inoperational on account of absence of petrol cannot be said to be a defect in the engine, in case it starts after the petrol is used. In the present case, the same is the position. The wire from the meter was found removed and after rewiring the meter started moving on forward direction. Therefore, in my opinion the meter in question cannot be said to be a defective and simply on the ground that the petitioner has filed an application before the Electrical Inspector, the respondents action in raising supplementary bill and in failure, to disconnect the line, cannot said to be without jurisdiction.
The aforesaid point came up for consideration before this Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Chhaganlal, 1981 MPLJ 417 = AIR 1981 MP 170 wherein this Court enunciated the law in the following words :-
"9. In the light of these averments in the pleadings, the question for decision that arises is whether when a meter does not record the actual energy not because of the defect in the meter as such, but because of the defective wiring. Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act is attracted?
10. The word "correct" is used in Sub-section (1) as well as in Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act. The context in which this word is used in both these sub-sections, same meaning has to be assigned to it. It is not a word of art and, therefore, it has to be understood in its ordinary meaning. In the common parlance, the expression "meter" is correct would mean that there is no fault or defect in the meter and the expression "meter" is not correct would mean that the meter is defective-there is fault in the meter. If the pleadings of the parties arc judged in this light, on defendants' own showing, in paragraph 4 of the written statement. There was no defect in the meter : the defect is in wiring due to which the total energy that was consumed by the consumer plaintiff did not pass through that meter. In other words, because of the defective wiring i.e. non-supply of 'Y' potential to the meter. This defect cannot be held to be a defect in meter. This view is buttressed from the Explanation to Sub-section (7) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act, the relevant part whereof reads as under :-
"A meter shall be deemed to be correct if it registers the amount of energy supplied, or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, within the prescribed limits of error.....
The question who is responsible for the defective wiring is not material for the purpose of Section 26(6) of the Act. Even if it is a result of consumer's manipulation that the actual energy consumed is not allowed to pass through the meter which has no fault, it cannot be said that the meter is not correct so as to attract Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act.
8. Reference in this connection can also be made to an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Smt. Basantibai, 1988 1 SCC 23 wherein this Court held as follows :-
It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of Sub-section (6) of Section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26(6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, that can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act.
9. In the present case also, the meter was not working because of. absence of wire, but when rewiring was done, it started moving on forward direction. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding with the meter in the present case cannot be said to be defective. Once having held so, it is necessary to refer to the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that Electrical Inspector being in seisin of the matter, no supplementary bill or disconnection can be affected. In my opinion, there is bar to the raising of the supplementary bill only when it is found that there is defect in the meter itself.
10. These were the only submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in support of the Writ Application and having negatived the same, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.