IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29/01/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN
W.P.No.16249 of 1996
and
W.M.P.No.12090 of 1998
M/s.Shree Ganapathy Industries,
represented by its
Managing Partner, Govindasamy .. Petitioner
-Vs-
The Assistant Engineer,
Distribution/Sipcot,
MEDC-North,
Gummidipoondi .. Respondent
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of certiorari as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
for Mr.S.Mohan
For respondent : Mr.G.Vasudevan
:ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash
the order of the respondent in Lr.No.JE/D/SIP/GPD/FDOC/D.221/96 dated
4.10.1996.
2. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing
of G.I.Wire and M.S.Wire and obtained electricity service connection on
11.11.1994. According to the petitioner, a complaint was lodged by them in
July, 1995 stating that the meter was running even without any load and the
main switch was in the off position and on 2.8.1995 , the Department inspected
the meter and found the meter running even without any load and a new meter
was installed and connected on 11.1 0.1995 and that was also defective and
another new meter was fixed on 8.8.1996 and the respondent, without any notice
or enquiry, in his proceedings bearing Lr.No.JE/D/SIP/GPD/FDOC/D.221/96 dated
4.10.1996 enclosed a bill revision statement pertaining to the period from
December, 1995 to 8.8.1996 and demanded a sum of Rs.5,63,187/- towards the
difference in charges for the said period as detailed in the statement annexed
to the impugned order.
It is further stated by the petitioner that during the relevant
period, the actual meter reading of electricity consumed by the petitioner
were recorded and actual charges had already been collected based on that
readings. The petitioner has further stated that there was peak hour
restriction in consumption of electric energy during the period from December,
1995 to August, 1996 and machinery were not operated for one shift out of
three shifts in a day and the production statements would authenticate this
fact. It is further stated that there was only minimum production due to
financial constraint and labour unrest during the relevant period and the
petitioner did not consume much electricity and the rate of consumption worked
out on average consumptions at a uniform rate is arbitrary and incorrect.
According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been made in contravention
of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act by not referring the meter to
the Electrical Inspector and making a revision of charges beyond the statutory
period of six months and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
3. The respondent in its counter has stated that the Assistant
Executive Engineer/APTS/North inspected the service connection of the
petitioner and reported defects in the function of the meter and it was
replaced on 11.10.1995 and the replaced meter was also found to be defective
and a third meter was fixed on 8.8.1996 and the current consumption charges in
the service connection has been worked out on the basis of the meter reading
shown by the third meter and the bills were revised as per clause 17.10 of the
terms and conditions of supply of electricity.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondent.
5. Admittedly, the service connection of the petitioner was effected
on 11.11.1994 and the meter then fixed was found to be defective and replaced
on 11.10.1995 and the replaced meter was also found to be defective and a
third meter was fixed on 8.8.1996. In the impugned order, the respondent has
demanded a sum of Rs.5,63,187/-, pursuant to bill revision from December, 1995
to 8.8.1996 on account of loss of consumption charges due to the defectiveness
of the meter. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground
that it is in contravention of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and
has sought for quashing it.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the bills
were revised as per Clause 17-10 of the terms and conditions of supply of
electricity. The procedure for assessment of quantity of electricity supplied
during the period where the meter is found to be defective is stipulated in
Clause 17.10 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. Section 26
of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 deals with meters and under Sub Section
(6), the procedure to be followed in a case of difference or dispute asto the
correctness of the meter is stated in the following terms.
“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’ notices of his intention so to do.”
In the above provision, it is stipulated that if there is difference or
dispute with regard to the correctness of the meter, the consumer or the Board
may make an application to the Electrical Inspector and on such application
being made, the Electrical Inspector has to verify and ascertain the
correctness of the meter and if the meter is found to be defective, the
Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the
consumer for a period not exceeding six months.
7. In the present case, the above procedure has not been followed.
The respondent Board has itself estimated the amount of energy supplied to the
consumer for a period more than six months and has passed the impugned order
demanding payment of that sum. As per Section 26 (6) of the Act, the
Authority to declare the meter as ceased to be correct is only the Electrical
Inspector and on making of such declaration, he has to estimate the amount of
energy supplied to the consumer, during such time, not exceeding six months.
8. In this context, the Order of a learned single Judge of this Court
in a similar case reported in A.A.Mohd. Raffi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Madras-2 and 2 others (2000 (III) CTC
137) is brought to my notice and I am in agreement with the view taken. The
impugned order has been passed in utter disregard of the provision in Section
26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and it is liable to be quashed.
9. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. It is open to the
respondent to proceed afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Connected
WMP.No.12090 of 1998 is closed.
vks
To
The Assistant Engineer,
Distribution/Sipcot,
MEDC-North,
Gummidipoondi