Karnataka High Court
M/S Anriya Dwellington Apartment vs The Assistant Executive Engineer ... on 18 September, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.45450/2014 (GM-KEB)
Between:
M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment
Association, No.1, I Main, Lottegollahalli
Dollors Colony, RMV 2nd Stage
Bangalore-54
Represented by Sri. Srinivasa Gandhi.
...Petitioner
(By Mr. Subramanya Bhat M, Advocate)
And:
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl)
Bangalore Electricity Supply
Company Ltd., (BESCOM)
C-6 Sub-division, Mathikere
Bangalore-560 054.
2. The Consumers Grievances Redressal
Forum, BESCOM, Office of the
Superintending Engineer
West Circle, 05, 3rd Stage
Bheemajyothi, HBCS Layout
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-79
Represented by the Chairperson.
3. The Electricity Ombudsman
An Authority Constituted under Section
42(6) of the Electricity Act 2003
Having office at Karnataka Electricity
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014
M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs.
The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others
2/28
Regulatory Commission
Rep. by Asst. Executive Engineer
9/2, 6th floor, Mahalakshmi Chambers
M.G. Road, Bangalore-01.
4. The Bangalore Electricity Supply
Company Ltd. (BESCOM)
Rep. by Managing Director
K.R. Circle, Bangalore-560001.
... Respondents
(By Mr. H.V. Devaraju, Advocate for C/R1 & R4
R2 & R3 Sd- & Unrepresented)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari, or
any other writ, order or direction, quashing the demand
notice bearing No.AEE(Elcl)C-6/AE(TECH)SALE/175-78
dated 17.4.2013 issued by the first Respondent (Annexure-A)
& etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Mr. Subramanya Bhat M, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. H.V. Devaraju, Advocate for C/R1 & R4
1. The petitioner, M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association ('Association' for short) of owners and occupants of M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment, a Multi-storied Building, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition challenging Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 3/28 the impugned demand of Rs.37,79,404/- raised by the Respondent -Assistant Executive Engineer, (Electrical)-
6th Central Sub-Division, BESCOM, Mathikere, Bengaluru.
2. The reason assigned in the said demand by the Assistant Executive Engineer is that the new Meter installed at the said Building on 04/06/2005 after the earlier Meter bearing RR No.MSC6EH4852 was serviced on 20/11/2004 with sanctioned load of 22 KW. was replaced on 04/06/2005 and in the new Meter, a constant of 50/5 Amps. ratio which is equivalent to 10 counts was so installed, but, while raising the Bills, during the contemporary period between 04/06/2005 to 06/04/2013, on account of an arithmetical error and bona fide lapse of multiplying the Meter reading in the Meter installed on 04/06/2005, the multiplication of '10K' was not done to arrive at the actual consumption charges chargeable from the Consumers Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 4/28 or the Members of the petitioner Association and therefore the said recovery was raised by the impugned order Annexure A dated 17/04/2013.
3. The petitioner Association filed its complaint against the said order before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, BESCOM, Bengaluru, which also rejected its complaint with the following observations.
"It is noticed that the installation was fixed with 10K constant at 50/5 ratio of CT reading. The constant was not applied at the time of issuing the bills and the dereliction of duty by the employees of the subdivision is evident. It is the requirement to make demand for not charging the constant. It is also noticed that the issue regarding unauthorized use of power for commercial purpose falls under the provision of section
126. Therefore, the following order is passed.
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 5/28
1) The appeal preferred by the Consumer to drop the backbilling demand is hereby rejected.
2) To take disciplinary action against the concerned employee.
3) To file an appeal challenging the
back billing to the appellate
authority."
4. The petitioner Association took the matter further before the Electricity Ombudsman, KERC, Bengaluru by way of complaint in Case No.OMB/B/G-
182/2014/407 which came to be dismissed by the said Electricity Ombudsman by order, Annexure G dated 08/09/2014, noticing the following rival contentions of both the sides. The said contentions and the decisions of the Ombudsman are also quoted below for ready reference.
"9. The Authorised Representative of the Appellant argued that the 2nd Respondent had partly heard the matter on 07.03.2014 and still material evidence had to be adduced Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 6/28 by the Appellant on a future date of hearing, but all of a sudden, the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order. Even this order bore the signature of only two Members, although the matter had been heard by three Members. Thus, the proceedings have been vitiated and, therefore, such proceedings are liable to be quashed. In addition, the 1st Respondent has failed to consider the pleas put for the by the Appellant and, therefore, violated natural justice.
10. The Authorised Representative added that the Appellant is not aware of BESCOM fixing the new meter in place of the old metre. Further, at the time of servicing though the Appellant installed required capacity of transformers, the 1st Respondent failed to take any steps to install the required meter for energy audit purposes.
11. The Authorised Representative further contended that during the past ten years, ownership of the flats has changed hands and most of the existing occupants are Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 7/28 retired persons with limited resources. Besides, bills of the past consumption cannot be imposed upon them as it amounts to illegality. Even the Courts have held in numerous cases that the arrears cannot be collected from the new occupants. In the instant case, the 1st Respondent has shown total negligence and, therefore, cannot claim blanket shelter and exemption under the provisions of the Limitation Act. Moreover, in the present case, 1st Respondent has not verified the Consumer dossier but only on the basis of MT Rating Division inspection report and mahazar has made short claims which do not come under the category of erroneous billing under Clause 29.08 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Lilcensees in the State of Karnataka and, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot make short claims for the entire period of 9 years but can claim charges only for a period of 12 months preceding the date of inspection at twice the tariff applicable to the purpose for which the energy is misused under Clause 42.02 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 8/28 Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka.
The Authorised Representative, contesting the short claims, added that the 1st Respondent has failed to follow the procedure laid down under clause 29.03 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka while making supplementary claims and also has not passed provisional assessment order giving 15 days time to the Appellant to file objections, if any, nor passed final assessment order after considering the objections filed by the Appellant and, hence, prayed this Authority to set aside the demand and issue directions to the 1st Respondent to pass fresh assessment order following the procedure.
12. The Law officer, BESCOM appearing for the 1st Respondent argued that the 2nd Respondent has not committed any irregularities as made out by the Appellant under clause 8.02 of KERC (CGRF & Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 9/28 Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004. As per clause 8.02 of KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004, quorum for the 2nd Respondent to conduct proceedings is two and Members present during the meeting have to sign the order as per Clause 8.03. In the present case, initially, when the Appellant filed complaint before the 2nd respondent, there were three Members and, during the course of the hearing, one of the Members demitted his office as he completed his tenure and the remaining Members conducted the proceedings and passed order. As per Regulation 8.02 of KERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004, even in the absence of one Member, proceedings could be continued and order could be passed by the remaining two Members. Just because one Member is shown on the top of the order, and not signed the order, does not mean that a particular Member after participating in the proceeding has failed to sign the order and thus, it will not vitiate the order.
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 10/28
13. The Counsel for the 1st Respondent added that installation bearing R.R. No.MSC-6 EH 4852 was serviced on 20.11.2004 with a sanction load of 22 KW and meter was also fixed for recording the consumption at that time. As this metre burnt out, it was replaced on 04.06.2005 and the new metre had a multiplying constant of 50/5 AMPS ratio which is equivalent to 10 and the Metre Reader while reading the metre was supposed to multiply the consumed unit by a multiplying constant of 10. In the instant case, the meter reader failed to apply multiplying constant of 10. Thus, only 1/10 the consumption was billed. On 06.04.2013, the MT Rating Division, during their routine rating, observed non-application of multiplying constant of 10 and having issued erroneous bill previously and, therefore, suggested to the concerned to make fresh assessment for the period from
04.06.2005 to 06.04.2013.
14....
15...
16...
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 11/28
17. Having regard to the contending positions of the parties, the issues that emerge for our consideration are:
a) Whether the case on hand comes under Regulation 27.03 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka as contended by the Appellant?
b) Whether the 1st Respondent has followed the procedure while making
supplementary claims for Rs.37,79,404/-?
18. To answer the first question, we have refer to mahazar report drawn by the Executive Engineer MT Division dated 06.04.2013. The First Para of the mahazar deals with the functioning of the meter and records that there is no defect in the functioning of the meter and finds meter recording error as coming within limits. The second paragraph of the mahazar saya "on verification from the RR docket there is no reference for fixing of the meter on the date of Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 12/28 service i.e. 20.11.2004. However, there is a reference in the RR Register on 04.06.2005 for fixing of the said meter due to burning out of previous meter bearing make DZG, 10-40A, Type-DV604IR, Sl.o.10769009, final reading 01853.' Mahazar further notes "that the metre constant K-10 is left out in the bill from the date of replacement of old metre i.e. 04.06.2005 and that this is explained to the Joint Secretary of the Association, Smt. Suchitra. Smt. Kavita, Manger." Last pasra of the Mahazar advises the 1st Respondent to make short claims from the date of fixing new CTs as per regulations from 04.06.2004 till 06.04.2013.
19. It appears from the Mahazar that the Executive Engineer, M.T. Rating Division, after inspecting the meter, took a decision to verify R.R. Docket and R.R. Register of the Consumer to check whether the Meter Reader had applied multiplying constant 10 correctly or not and the cross checking revealed that meter reader had not applied the multiplying Constant-10 in respect of the subject meter Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 13/28 and, hence, advised the 1st Respondent to make short claims from the date of fixing the new meter i.e. 04.06.2005. Mahazar establishes that the Executive Engineer, M.T. Division not only has inspected the installation but also verified the dossier of the Consumer and, on verification, he found the multiplying constant 10 is left out in the bill from 04.06.2005 and, therefore, advised the 1st Respondent to make short claims. Mahazar settles that the case on hand does not come under Clause 27.03 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka as it does not pertain to metre dispute and, hence, does not require the 1st Respondent to make short claims for a period of 6 months preceding inspection. Mahazar confirms that during verification of Consumer dossier i.e. RR Register, the Executive Engineer (EI), M.T. Rating Division noticed the erroneous billing from 04.06.2005 i.e. from the date of fixing of new CTs on account of non-application of multiplying constant 10 and, thus, the 1st Respondent is found to Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 14/28 have not committed any irregularity as the short claims are found to have been made based on verification of RR Registrar and M.T. Rating Division's report. Therefore, invoking Clause 29.03 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka by the 1st Respondent is found to be in order. Therefore, contention of the appellant that the issue should have been dealt under Clause 27.03 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka is without any basis and, hence rejected.
20. The Second Issue is whether the 1st Respondent has given opportunity to the Appellant to file objections before passing the final assessment order. From the available records, the 1st Respondent appears to have issued 30 days' notice to the Appellant Association dated 17.04.2013 and the Appellant Association is found to have filed its objection pursuant to the notice dated 06.04.2003 and, hence, the arguments of the Appellant that procedure laid down under Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 15/28 Clause 29.03 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka is not followed while making supplementary claims cannot be accepted.
21. The Authorised Representative of the Appellant has argued that one of the 2nd Respondent Members, though participated in the proceedings, has not attested his signature to the final order and, hence, the proceedings got vitiated. In the present case, it appears that the nominated Member along with other Members has heard the case initially and demitted the office before the final order was passed and this he is found to have done on account of completion of his tenure as CGRF Member and, subsequently, the remaining two Members who constituted the quorum seemed to have continued with the business and found to have passed the impugned order. Under Regulation 8.02 KERC (CGRF & Ombudsman Regulations), 2004 "The proceedings of the Forum shall be conducted by the Chairperson of the Forum in Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 16/28 the presence of the members, the quorum being two" and, hence the remaining two members were entitled to proceed with the case and pass final order as they constituted quorum and therefore the arguments of the Appellant that the proceedings conducted by the CGRF in the instant case are vitiated is devoid of merit and hence rejected. Therefore, the following order:
ORDER
22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent vide No.CGRF/235/2013-14/04-06.2013/1159- 65 dated 28.05.2014 is hereby upheld.
(B.R. Jayaramaraje Urs) Electricity Ombudsman"
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Association has urged before the Court that in view of Section 56(2) and Condition No.29.08 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka, the Respondent BESCOM is not Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 17/28 entitled to recover any arrears beyond a period of two years, when such sum became first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the Bills, recoverable as arrears of the charges of Electricity supplied.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Association, therefore, contended that it was firstly not the mistake of the petitioner Association or its Members if such error occurred on the part of the officials of the Respondent BESCOM in not multiplying the actual Units consumed by individual Flat owners or Consumers by '10K' and such past recovery of arrears cannot go beyond the period of two years in any case.
7. He further submitted that a provisional order ought to have been passed by the Respondent -
Assistant Executive Engineer, so that the petitioner or its Members could raise their objections against such levy and recovery of arrears.
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 18/28
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent BESCOM relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s. Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Jharkhand Vs. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi and others [AIR 2016 Jharkhand 98] has submitted that it was not a case of erroneous Billing falling within the ambit of Section 56(2) or Condition No.29.08 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka and therefore, on a mistake of fact, if the arrears correcting such a mistake are sought to be recovered from the Members of the petitioner Association, no valid grievance can be raised against the same and he supported the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below including upto the Electricity Ombudsman.
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 19/28
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that no interference in the impugned orders passed by both the Authorities below is required in the present writ petition.
10. It is a simple case of mistake in computing the Units of consumption which has occurred in the present case by oversight or a clerical mistake. It is equally the fault of the Consumers who enjoyed paying only 1/10th of the usual consumption charges for all these period of nine years.
11. It is unbelievable that an honest Consumer paying only 10% of his usual charges will not even feel the difference and bring this fact to the notice of the Respondent Authorities. The gross mistake of the Consumers also cannot be allowed to be given a premium, if this Court were to ignore and restrict such recoveries, by the period of limitation prescribed under Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 20/28 the provisions of Section 56(2) or Condition No.29.08 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka. These provisions are quoted below for ready reference.
"Section 56(2): Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any Consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
Clause 29.08: Adjustment of Erroneous Bills:
(a) At any time during verification of the Consumer's account, if any short claims caused by erroneous billing are noticed, the Consumer is liable to pay the difference. The Licensee shall follow the Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 21/28 procedure laid down under Clause 29.03 in such cases for preferring the supplemental claims. However, the Licensee shall not recover any arrears after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable as arrears of the charges of electricity supplied.
In case the verification of the Consumer's account shows excess claims made in the past, the excess amount shall be credited to the Consumer 's account along with the interest at Bank Rate from the date of payment upto the date of credit. This shall be done within one month from the date of pointing out the excess claims. If for any reason there is delay in crediting the amount to the Consumer's account, interest at 2% per month shall be paid to the Consumer for the period beyond two months.
(b) When the difference is payable by the Consumer, claims shall be made by a separate supplemental bill furnishing all the Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 22/28 relevant details with a 15 days' notice as indicated in Clause 29.03."
12. While this Court is also conscious of the fact that the Respondent BESCOM Authorities have also been negligent in not making the timely inspection and bringing this fact to the knowledge of the Consumers within a reasonable time, while leaving it free for the concerned higher Authorities to take disciplinary action against the erring officials of the Respondent BESCOM in this regard, this Court does not find it a fit case to absolve the Consumers of their liability to pay, for what they have consumed. A simple arithmetical error for not multiplying the Units as shown in the Meter which required it to be multiplied by '10K', the constant factor depending upon the type of Meter installed at the said installation from 04/06/2005 to 06/04/2013, the petitioner Association or the Consumers in question cannot be said to have been deprived of their right to Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 23/28 raise objection or opportunity of being heard. They had their Appeals heard before the two higher Forums under the Act, first, before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Committee, which dismissed their complaint vide Annexure C order dated 27/05/2014 and then before the Electricity Ombudsman vide Annexure G dated 08/09/2014. All their objections and contentions have been duly considered but the fact remains that it was a case of simple mathematical error which is sought to be corrected in the impugned demand raised against them which is neither a case of erroneous assessment nor any other technical issue with the Meter installation which required some adjudication of the objections of the Consumers.
13. A similar view appears to have been taken by the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in M/s. Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Jharkhand Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 24/28 (supra), wherein the learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court held as under:
"Para.7:The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bills dated 13.05.2014 and 04.06.2014 are barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 rejected the said plea merely observing that in view of decision in "Tata Steel Ltd. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board" 2008 (1) JCR 149 (Jhr.), Sheo Shakti Cement Industries is liable to pay the bill for Rs. 1,80,45,968/-. Trying to distinguish the decision in "Tata Steel Ltd.", it is contended that the bills raised by the respondent-Nigam between the period 27.01.2011 and 31.03.2014 were all duly paid and therefore, the decision in "Tata Steel Ltd." is not applicable in the present case. In the said case this Court held that the amount becomes "first due" for payment only when the Board raises bill as per the tariff. It is submitted that the entire process is split in 3 stages namely, consumption of electricity, raising of demand Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 25/28 and payment of demand. In the present case in the garb of supplementary demand the respondent-Nigam cannot demand payment for electricity consumption for which bills were raised and paid long back. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that no demand can be raised for the first time after a period of 2 years from the date when such demand became "first due". The provision under sub-section (2) must be read in the context of sub-section 1 of Section 56. Section 56(1) provides that the supply of electricity can be disconnected on 15 days' clear notice in writing, if any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity dues from him to a licensee or generating company in respect to supply, transmission, distribution or billing of electricity to him. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that expression "no sum due" in sub- section 2 is confined to Section 56 only. Thus, the sum due from the Consumer is the amount for charge of electricity which the Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 26/28 Consumer has neglected to pay. Section 56(2) refers to only such amount which was within the knowledge of the Consumer or within the knowledge of the Electricity Board/Nigam. Moreover, it is well settled that a mistake can always be corrected and a mistake in calculation no doubt, can be rectified at a subsequent stage. In the present case, error in raising correct bills occurred due to difference in Multiplying Factor in the old CTPT Metering Unit which was removed and the new CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011. The contention that the bills for the period between 29.01.2011 to 31.03.2014 were paid by the petitioner and thus, supplementary bill dated 04.06.2014 is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be accepted. The petitioner has consumed electricity supplied by respondent-Nigam is not in dispute. The Installation Report dated 27.01.2011 discloses the particulars of the CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011 and those particulars are Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 27/28 corroborated by the Installation Report dated 31.01.2014 and therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid payment for the electricity consumed by it. The supplementary bill dated 13.05.2014 as corrected by bill dated 04.06.2014 raised on account of less Multiplying Factor is not barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the High Court of Bombay in "Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. The Electricity Ombudsman 606" (W.P. 10764 of 2011) and submits that noticing the judgment in "H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi" AIR 1987 Delhi 219, the Bombay High Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench. It is contended that the decision in "H.D. Shourie case" on which Division Bench of this Court placed reliance has been doubted by the Bombay High Court. I am inclined to accept this contention. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in "Tata Steel Ltd. Case" is binding on me.
Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.45450/2014 M/s. Anriya Dwellington Apartment Association Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elcl.) and others 28/28
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is wholly devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*