JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) In this writ petition the challenge is to the demand of electricity charges raised by the respondents against the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6.
(2) Petitioner No. 2 Shri R.N. Vasudeva is the owner of House No. 1/12, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. There was an electricity meter which was installed at the said premises. On 7th May, 1984 he received a bill for Rs. 38,654.74 from respondent No. 2 for the period from 15th November, 1976 to 1st January, 1978. According to the respondents two meters installed at the said house had stopped from 15th November, 1976 and 1st January 1978 and that they had been replaced respectively on 1st March, 1984 and 15th December, 1983. It is after the replacement of the meters that the respondents worked out the consumption on a hypothetical basis and raised the aforesaid demand. No redress was received except that the demand was modified to Rs. 36,8’8.79. This amount has been paid by this petitioner to the respondent because otherwise there was a threat of disconnection.
(3) Petitioner No. 3 Dr. G.F. Lakhani is the owner of house No. 1/18 Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. Electricity meters were installed at the said premises but on 9th July, 1984 he received a bill for Rs. 5462.28 from the respondents. It was stated that two meters in the said house were found to be defective, one from 13th September, 1978 to 9th January, 1982 and the other from 17th July, 1980 to 15th September, 1980. The demand was calculated by taking into account the consumption recorded in the base period of one year prior to the defective period. The said petitioner protested against the demand but to no effect. The final bill which was received by this petitioner was for Rs. 5609.48. The said bill has, however, been paid because otherwise the respondents had threatened disconnection of the electricity. This has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(4) Petitioner No. 4 Brig. Gautam Narain owns house No. A-286, defense Colony, New Delhi. A bill for Rs. 3896.00 for the period from 19th January, 1976 to 27th July, 1982 was received by this petitioner on the ground that one of the meters installed at the said house had remained defective from 19th January, 1976 to 27th July, 1982. Representation was made against the said bill but to no avail. Ultimately this petitioner had to pay the said amount and thereafter the electricity connection, which had been disconnected earlier, was restored.
(5) Petitioner No. 5 is the owner of house No. F-3/1 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. This house was constructed in 1979 and a bill for Rs. 36,872.99 for the period from 24th April, 1979 to 20th June, 1984 was received by this petitioner in July, 1984. This was the first bill which was received in respect of the electricity consumed by the occupants of the said house. This amount has been paid by the said petitioner because if it had not been paid, there was a threat of disconnection.
(6) Petitioner No. 6 is Friends Club Limited, Friends Colony, Community Centre, New Delhi. A bill for Rs. 24,168-17 was received by the Club from respondent out of which Rs. 3387.92 related to current consumption and the balance of Rs. 20,780.25 related to the period 1977,1978, 1979 and 1980. Demand for these years was made on the ground that the meter had got burnt and the same was replaced, along with three other meters, by a single 3-phase meter in 1981. The said petitioner represented that the demand was illegal because no electricity could have been supplied through the burnt meter. This petitioner had not paid the disputed demand till the filing of the writ petition.
(7) The two contentions which have been raised in this writ petition are, firstly that no demand can be raised more than three years after the consumption of the electricity and, secondly, the demand which has been raised on account of defective or burnt meters is liable to be quashed because the mandatory provisions of section 26(6) of the Electricity Act have not been complied with.
(8) In my judgment in the case of H.D.Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another. Civil Writ No. 2004 of 1983, delivered on 31st March, 1987, it has been held by me that there is no period of limitation when the demand is first to be raised for the electricity which is consumed. It was further held that whenever the respondents allege that there is a defect in the meter, then it is obliged to follow the procedure laid down in Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. It was further observed that the maximum period for which electricity charges can be recovered, and that also after following the procedure laid down under section 26(6), can only be for a period of six months.
(9) In view of the fact that the provisions of Section 26(6) have admittedly not been followed in the present case and for the reasons stated in my judgment in H.D. Shourie’s case (Supra) the impugned demand raised by the respondents against petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 is quashed. The demand raised against petitioner No. 5 is, however, valid as the said demand is not raised on account of defect in any electric meter. The said demand has no doubt been raised more than three years after the consumption of electricity but there is no illegality in raising such a demand and the said amount has already been paid.
(10) A writ of mandamus is accordingly issued quashing the demands of the respondents against petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6. The respondents are further directed to refund to the petitioners, within four weeks of the receipt of copy of this judgment, the amount of electricity charges paid by them pursuant to the issuance of the disputed bills. The respondents are further directed to pay to the said petitioners interests at the rate rate of 12″, per annum from the date of the payment of the amount by them till repayment of the same by the respondents. The petitioners will also be entitled to costs.