Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The legality and justification of an electricity bill for the sum, of Rs. 1,37,494/- issued by the Respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd (hereafter variously, 'BSES' Ltd and 'the utility') has been questioned, in these writ proceedings.

2. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the dispute are that the petitioner, an electricity consumer, carrying on business in printing, was issued with the impugned bill, whereby the utility demanded an amount of Rs. 1,37,994/-.

3. The basic facts are not in controversy. The utility does not allege, either in its return in these proceedings, or during the course of hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of indulging in any theft of electricity or 'dishonest abstraction of electricity' falling within the description under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Yet, it alleges that although the meter was not tampered, its clock (time setting) was faulty. At one stage, it half heartedly alleged that the petitioner consumer had utilized magnetic devices, which distorted the true reading. However the main ground urged, is that the electricity meter truly reflected the consumption, which was to the tune of 373 KW, as against a sanctioned load of 75 KW.

5. Mr. Vinayak, counsel for the utility, on the other hand, submitted that the meter failed only in one parameter, and therefore, the BSES rightly did not raise any demand on the basis of theft or dishonest abstraction of electricity. It was claimed that the utility demanded the sum in question on the basis of the 'CMRI'/computer data, downloaded in respect of the petitioner's premises, which revealed that the actual consumption was much higher than the sanctioned load, and that was exactly the basis of the demand.

9. The facts of this case do not show that the MDI (Maximum Demand Indicator) of the BSES meter was faulty; hence the reliance placed on Para 10.2 of the relevant Tariff Order (extracted above) is not apt. This is because the BSES itself changed the meter, and therefore did not bring it in line with SIP/ NDLT limits. Its explanation that consumption on a single day, was 373KW, formed the basis of the impugned demand.

10. I am also of the view that the conduct of BSES is such that Regulation 21 is inapplicable. It did not wait for the six month period, to observe the consumption pattern, and work out the formula stipulated in that provision.

11. In these circumstances, the question is whether the impugned bill is legal. If indeed, the explanation of BSES that it did not bill on the basis of dishonest abstraction of electricity were correct, then its stand bristles with contradiction, because any load, consumed, or connected, above the sanctioned load can fall within the meaning of that expression. Yet, it chose not to apply it. The rationalization, given during course of hearing was that inspections do not yield information, and the BSES cannot keep a vigil at all times, cannot be accepted. If its case is that the consumer acted in gross contravention of the sanctioned load, as is sought to be projected, there ought to be some material, and not merely its ipse dixit, on the basis of CMRI data, which was admittedly not given to the petitioner at the relevant time. As far as explanations go, there could be more than one, not all necessarily attributable to the consumer's alleged culpability. Electrical surges are not an unknown phenomenon. Being a utility, which is in possession of all the data connected with the supply, the BSES has to disclose that there was nothing in the supply, or attributable to the supply, which resulted in a consumption of 373 KW on a single day.