ORDER
1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken-up for disposal.
2. The writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.1,31,693 towards the revised bill for service connection No.SC 56, Santhi Nagar Distribution to the defective meter for the period from April, 1994 to December, 1994.
3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated herein. According to him, he is running a cattle and poultry feeds manufacturing industry and has been provided with Service Connection SC No. 56 by the respondents. During the relevant period, the petitioner had been pointing out about the fall in consumption and the petitioner had already explained by various communications, including the communication dated 10.2.1995. The petitioner pointed out that he was running a poultry farm with a connected load of 6640 watts and that the power was not utilised uniformly on all days in a month and it depends upon various factors unlike agricultural or domestic service connections It is further stated that without reference to any of the above correspondence, a demand has been made from April, 1994 to December, 1994, which is totally arbitrary. Under such- circumstances, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
4. On behalf of the respondents, the Executive Engineer, Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, has filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is running a poultry farm, and for the industrial service the consumption of energy readings will be taken bi-monthly like domestic service. On 22.10.1994, while taking meter reading, the Assessor found that the meter was struck up. Immediately, the Assessor noted the same in the Defective Register on 22.10.1994. Subsequently, the third respondent removed the meter on 13.12.1994 and sent the same to the M.R.T. Lab at Coimbatore for test and a new meter was fixed on the same day. The last reading was taken before the strike of Assessors, that is in February, 1994 and the meter reading is 2/94 – 68740. The reading of the 10th month is 70335. She real recorded consumption for the months February, 1994 to October, 1994 is only 1995 units. It is further stated that since the recorded consumption was very low, a doubt has been raised whether the meter is recording correct consumption of energy or not. By comparing the consumption pattern for the earlier period, namely, December, 1995 February, 1994, a vast difference of consumption of energy was found. Accordingly, the average consumption was worked out in terms of Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity and a revised bill was served for Rs.1,41,480 for the period April, 1994 to December, 1994. With these averments he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner herein in was given Service Connection, namely, SC No.56, Santhi Nagar Distribution, Coimbatore aid the connected load is 6.5 kw. It is seen from the letter of the petitioner, dated 10.2.1995, after noting the meter reading, he had requested the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity, Board, the third respondent herein, stating that an opportunity may be given to him before making any disconnection or claim for compensation. By the impugned proceedings, dated 8.6.1996, the third respondent had
directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,51,695 towards the revised bill for the Service Connection No. 56. The reason mentioned therein is that there is a defect in the meter, A reading of the said order shows that without reference to notice, explanation/representation of the petitioner or any of the provisions, namely, Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act or Clause 17 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, the third respondent has passed the impugned order. Though the respondents are empowered to revise the bill and collect the difference amount from the consumers, undoubtedly, they have to follow the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on Section 26(6) of Indian. Electricity Act, 1910. The said Section is as follows:-
“26. Meters.– (1) to (5)…..
.(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 conclusive 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 seven days’ notice of his intention so to do.”
It is clear from the above said provision that in case of any difference or dispute with reference to the meter referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 26, the sane has to be decided by making an application either by the consumer or the officers of the Electricity Board by an Electrical Inspector. It is also clear that it is for the Electrical Inspector to verify and ascertain the correctness of the meter and even if there is any defect in the meter, it is for the Inspector to estimate the amount of average supply, not exceeding six months. A reading of the said provisions show that an elaborate procedure is provided in case of any defect in the meter. Admittedly, the respondents, particularly, the third respondent has not followed the said recourse.
6. The learned, counsel for the petitioner has also relied on . In a similar circumstance. Justice S .Rajendra Babu (His Lordship as he then was) while considering Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, has held that in respect of faulty recording of meters, the Board cannot raise bill without approaching Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) and getting meters tested. The same view has been reiterated by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in .
7. It is also relevant to refer Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity. The said clause is as follows:
” 17.10. Where supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where the meter fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no theft of energy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during the
period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed was defective, will be assessed as mentioned hereunder:
The quantity of electricity, supplied during the period in question will be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the preceding four months in respect of High Tension service connections and two assessment periods (four months) in respect of Low Tension service connections, provided that the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said four months 2/3 two assessment periods were not different from those which prevailed, during the period in question. In respect of High. Tension service connections, where the meter fixed for measuring the maximum demand becomes defective, the maximum demand will be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of the recorded demand during the previous four months.
When the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in question is to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the succeeding two assessment periods, provided the conditions in regard to the use of electricity in respect of such Low Tension service connections are not different,”
Eventhough in the counter filed by the second respondent there is a reference to Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, it is not reflected in the order impugned whether the third respondent had followed any such procedure. It is settled law that it is not open to the respondents to improve their case by furnishing certain details in the counter affidavit.
8. I am satisfied that before passing the impugned order, the third respondent neither followed section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act nor complied with Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity. I have already stated that before revising the bill or claiming enhanced amount with regard to defective meter, the respondents have to follow the above referred statutory procedures, ‘In the absence of any such details in the order impugned, the order of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, is liable to be quashed.
9. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The third respondent herein is permitted to proceed afresh and pass appropriate orders as mentioned above, It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had deposited a sum of Rs.26,773 as security deposit at the time when he obtained Service Connection SC No. 56. According to him, the said amount is still lying with the respondents. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the stand of the petitioner, he is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000 (Rupees forty thousand only) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the third respondent. On such deposit being made, it is open to the third respondent to proceed and pass appropriate orders as stated above. The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, all the connected W.M.Ps. are closed.