Jharkhand High Court
K.R. Industrial Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Bihar State Electricity Board And Ors. on 4 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(4)JCR539(JHR)]
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Biren Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The two amendment applications filed by the petitioner are allowed.
3. The relevant but very short facts which need be taken note of so as to apply two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are that after having been connected 250 KVA H.T. Load, the authorities of the Board recorded various meter readings on various dates (Annexure-2 series) and found the meter to be in order. However, on 3.4.2000, while taking the readings, they made the following note :--
"the meter is giving absurd reading. Hence, the meter may be declared defective."
It is thereafter that a controversy erupted including issuance of the Bill for a sum of Rs. 3,24,161/-, which is contained in Annexure-4. In the Bill, it has been mentioned as follows :--
"Meter defective from 2/2K as per Meter reading statement dated 3.4.2000-38781."
4. The petitioner has made a grievance that thereafter they filed the Writ Application wherein certain interim orders were passed but the respondents did not comply and in the mean time, the Board also filed a counter affidavit. However, to put the bone of contention in a nutshell is that the entire controversy blew out of proportions after the aforementioned reading which finally culminated in a Bill amounting to the tune of Rs. 42,88,647.00.
5. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the meter had not yet been declared defective by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, therefore all Bills raised after Annexure- 3 are illegal. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act read as follows :--
26(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save, as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be inclusive proof of such amount or quantity :
Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than 7 day's notice of his intention so to do."
6. While interpreting aforementioned provisions of Section 26(6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MPEB and Ors. v. Smt. Basnatibai, reported in AIR 1988 SC 71, has held at paragraph 40 that a dispute in relation to a meter as a to whether the same is defective or faulty or not recording correctly, the same can only be decided by an Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, the report of the Assistant Engineer of the Board showed that one part of the meter was not working at all. So, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was undoubtedly a dispute and this had to be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision would be final and that from the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, till decision is taken by the Inspector, no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board. The relevant portion of the aforementioned Judgment are therefore necessary to be quoted :--
"9- It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in Subsection (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 Subsection (6) of Section 26. Such 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/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of said Act.
10. In the instant case it appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was not working at all, so there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question "is a correct one or a faulty meter and this dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision will be final. It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer as the Board is not empowered to do so by the said Act. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations made in the case of Fadag Betgirl, Municipal Borough, Gadag v. Electrical Inspector, Government Electrical Inspectorate, Government of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mys 209 as follows :--
What the Inspector may decide under Sub-section (6) is whether or not the readings obtainable from the meter are accurate and whether the meter is faulty or mechanically defective producing erroneous readings. That is the limited adjudication which in my opinion, an inspector or other authority functioning under Sub-section (6) may make under its provisions.
xxxxxxxx "In my opinion, the legislative intent underlying Section 26(6) of the Act is similar. The only question into which the Inspector or other authority functioning under that sub-section might investigate is, whether the meter is a false meter capable of improper use or whether it registers correctly and accurately the quantity of electrical energy passing through. If in that sense, the meter installed by respondent 2 this case was a correct meter as it undoubtedly was and as it has been admitted to be the fact that respondent 2, even if what the petitioner states is true, so manipulated the supply lines that more energy than what was consumed by the petitioner was allowed to pass through the meter would not render the meter which was otherwise correct and incorrect meter."
7. In yet another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. reported in (1997) 6 SCC 740, it has been held that the estimate of supply of energy by the Inspector is to be made for a period not exceeding six months prior to the date of raising the dispute for reference to the Electrical Inspector. The expression "not exceeding six months" indicates that the Electrical Inspector even when comes to the finding that the meter in question has ceased to be correct is not required in all cases to make an estimate of consumption of electricity for a period up to six months prior to the raising of the dispute for reference to the Electrical Inspector. The aforementioned observations have been made at paragraph 42 of the Judgment and it would only therefore be appropriate to quote the said paragraph herein :--
"42. It does not require any imagination to hold that the dispute when raised either by the consumer or by the licensee and reference to the Electrical Inspector is made, the Inspector is expected to consume some time for entering the reference of dispute, making inspection of the meter in question and after taking such technical test as may be necessary to finally adjudicate the dispute as to the correctness of the meter. Unless the adjudication as to the proper functioning of the meter is made, the question of estimating the supply of electricity of the statutory period during which such meter shall not have been correct, will not arise. In our view, taking into consideration the time-lag inherent between raising of dispute and adjudication of such dispute, the expression "during such time" in Sub-section (6) of Section 26 only means the time during which the dispute is raised for reference and the dispute is finally adjudicated. Hence, the estimate of supply of energy by the Inspector is to be made for a period not exceeding six months prior to the date of raising the dispute for reference to the Electrical Inspector. The expression "not exceeding six months indicates that Electrical Inspector even when comes to the finding that the meter in question has ceased to be correct, is not required in all cases to make an estimate of consumption of electricity for a period up to six months prior to the raising of the dispute for reference to the Electrical Inspector. In a given case, it may so happen that the Electrical Inspector may come to the finding that the meter ceased to be correct from a particular date which is not up to six months earlier to the date of raising the dispute for reference. In such case, the estimate to be prepared by the Electrical Inspector may not go up to six months prior to the date of raising the dispute for reference but such estimate will only cover the period prior to raising the dispute during which according to the Electrical Inspector, the meter had ceased to be correct."
8. Following the Judgment of MPEB's case, an Hon'be Single Judge of the then Ranchi Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Shriram Bearings Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 861, held that the dispute about the defectiveness of the meter is to be decided only by the Electrical Inspector and pending such dispute, no bill can be raised. The said learned Judge, following the same Judgment quashed the supplementary bills and gave directions as will be evident from paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof which accordingly are being quoted below :--
"5. It is almost admitted that the supplementary bill, as contained in Annexure-7, has been raised merely on the basis of the vigilance report, as contained in Annexure-3. In MPEB's case (supra) it has been held that the dispute about the defectiveness of the electricity meter is to be decided only by the Electrical Inspector under the Act and pending dispute no bill could have been raised.
6. The law on the point is very clear as the remedy of the parties lies under the Indian Electricity Act itself. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of MPEB (supra) the writ application must be allowed."
9. This Court, following the aforementioned Judgments also comes to a similar conclusion to the effect that when the officers of the Board by Annexure-3 used the words "hence meter may be declared defective, a dispute immediately came into existence. Once a dispute came into existence, either of the parties should have referred the meter to the Electrical Inspector. In the facts of this case since the words used in Anenxure-3 to the effect that "the meter may be declared defective" has been used by the officers of the Board themselves, then in all fairness, the matter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector by Board itself. However, following the aforementioned Judgments, the Writ Application is accordingly allowed and the impugned bills are hereby quashed. The Board shall now be at liberty to forthwith refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector for giving a finding as to whether the meter is defective or not. If the Electrical Inspector comes to a" finding that the meter is faulty and that due to some defect it has not recorded actual consumption, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of the such energy consumed in terms of Section 26(6) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
This Writ Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs.