JUDGMENT
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.
1. This civil writ petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the
defendant to grant rebate in the billing of the
electricity consumed by the petitioner and for refund of
Rs. 508.57, which was paid as cost of the meter.
2. The facts are simple. The petitioner is residing
in house No. 70, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar. Two
electricity meters were installed for supplying
electricity to this house. Electricity meter
K.No.RK584507 was supplying electricity to the ground
floor and electricity meter K.No.RK584061 was supplying
electricity to the first floor of the house. In August,
1989 the first meter was damaged. On a complaint being
made the staff of the respondent. DESU now known as DVB,
connected the line of the damaged electricity meter to
the second meter. As a result, the electricity consumed
on the ground floor was being billed as per meter
reading of the second meter. As demanded by the DESU, a
sum of Rs. 508.57 was paid as cost of the new meter but
the meter was not replaced for over 6 years. It was
provided on 25.1.1996. In the meantime all the bills of
the electricity were duly paid as per the reading of the
second meter (which was supplying electricity to the
first floor). Yet the respondent continued to bill the
petitioner in respect of the second electricity meter
also on load basis. It continued to issue such bills
inspite of protest and representation made by the
petitioner. At last an application was moved before
Bijli Adalat for refund of Rs. 508.57 and withdrawal of
the demand in respect of the damaged meter. On 5.9.1997
Bijli Adalat directed the withdrawal of entire demand
raised in respect of the damaged meter. The grievance
of the petitioner is that while the damaged meter was
not replaced from September, 1989 to January, 1996, the
electricity consumed in the ground floor was charged as
per meter reading of only one meter. It was stated that
the pattern of consumption of the electricity on the
ground floor and the first floor showed that the
consumption had always ranged between 500 units and
1000-1500 units in each floor. The billing for the
electricity used in the ground floor was chargeable at a
lower rate for the first 300 units as per tariff rate
but no such lower tariff rate was allowed and the
billing was done at the maximum rate of Rs. 3 per unit
for the total consumption of the damaged meter as per
the reading of the second meter. The petitioner
approached Bijli Adalat again in November, 1997 which
declined to interfere. It rather observed that as per
tariff, the electricity supplied to one premises cannot
be used in another premises and if it was done, the
mis-use charges were leviable which, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, were not levied. Thereafter,
the petitioner approached the Chairman of the
Respondent. The petitioner was advised that he had
option to raise the grievance before the conciliatory
court. Accordingly, on 15.7.1998 he filed an
application before the conciliatory court, which was
replaced by the permanent Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat on
04.2.2000 rejected the application observing that there
was no possibility of an amicable settlement of the
dispute between the parties. According to the
petitioner, the responsibility of maintaining the meter
was on the respondent. Section 26 of the Indian
Electricity Act and Rule 57 framed there under enjoined
upon the respondent to make regular checks on the
electricity meter. There was no justification for the
respondent for not changing the damaged meter for over 6
years in spite of the full knowledge and repeated
requests. There was no question of any mis-use of the
electricity by the petitioner since the electricity
lines of the defective meter were connected to the
second meter by the staff of the respondent which came
to attend the complaint. The petitioner could not be
punished for negligence and inaction of its staff in not
replacing the damaged electricity meter for a long time
causing substantial financial loss to the petitioner as
he was deprived of the lower tariff rate for the first
300 units of the electricity consumed on the ground
floor. Hence, the petition.
3. On noticing, Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Executive Engineer
of the respondent DVB filed a counter affidavit in which
he repudiated the claim of the petitioner. He deposed
that the meter in question was got damaged and its load
was transferred to the other meter that was alive by the
petitioner himself without the knowledge of the
respondent. The bills on the damaged meter were wrongly
raised, so they were later on withdrawn in September,
1997 in compliance of the decision of the Bijli Adalat.
The concessional slab system is applicable only when
separate meters exist and alive and record regular
consumption of electricity as per tariff provision. The
Bijli Adalat or permanent Lok Adalat have rightly turned
down the claim of the petitioner for concessional slab
of tariff. The mis-use of the live meter where
electricity was being used in both the floors has not
been levied as per the decision of the Bijli Adalat.
The total concessional slab rate on one meter is
impermissible. The total consumption of the electricity
was properly recorded in the meter and the concessional
slab rate was not clearly available to the consumer.
Refund of the cost of the meter could also not be
allowed as the meter has been installed. It was
contended that the writ petition was liable to be
dismissed.
4. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the
petitioner reiterated his own allegations and denied
those of the respondent.
5. I have heard the petitioner in person and counsel
for respondent DVB at length.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
electricity meter installed in the ground floor was
damaged in August, 1989. The staff of the respondent,
who attended to the complaint, without his consent had
connected the wires of the damaged meter to the second
live meter on the assurance that the damaged meter would
be replaced soon. Despite his writing several letters
and complaints, the damaged meter was not replaced,
which was the duty of the respondent to do so within
seven days. The damaged meter was ultimately replaced
only in January, 1996. Consequently, he submitted, the
electricity consumed at the ground floor continued to be
billed as per the meter reading of the second live meter
which used to supply electricity to the first floor. He
argued that as per tariff, he was entitled to
concessional rate for the first 300 units consumed on
the ground floor which he was deprived of when he was
forced to make the payment of the electricity consumed
on the ground floor at the higher tariff rate of Rs. 3
per unit. It was submitted that the pattern of
consumption of the electricity on the ground floor and
the first floor had shown that the electricity
consumption on each floor ranged between 500 units to
1000-1500 units. As such, the respondent should have
billed the petitioner for the electricity consumed at
the ground floor at concessional rate tariff for the
first 300 units in addition to a similar rate charged
for electricity used in the first floor. In other
words, he submitted that the respondent has over-charged
the petitioner by billing the entire consumption of the
two meters at the maximum rate of Rs. 3 per unit. He
urged that the respondent should refund the amount which
had been charged in excess before the first meter was
replaced. He further submitted that the electricity
meter was to be provided by the DVB for which it was
also to charge hire rent but he was made to pay
Rs. 508.57 for replacement of damaged meter, therefore,
this amount was also illegally recovered from him and
should be refunded.
7. It was also argued by the petitioner that the
Bijli Adalat has wrongly observed that the petitioner
was misusing the electricity or was liable to be billed
for it. According to him, the word ‘mis-use’ was not
defined in Indian Electricity Act or the rules framed
there under and this word was defined in the Electric
Tariff which came into effect from 01.3.1991. In
accordance with this definition, feeding from any live
connection to any connection lying disconnected due to
any reason in a building where there is more than one
connection was mis-use. But in the instant case, he
argued, there was no disconnection of electricity
connection in this building. It was only a damaged
meter which was to be replaced and the live connection
was connected to the second live meter of the building
by the irresponsible staff of the respondent of their
own in order to ensure continued supply of electricity
to the ground floor till they were able to replace the
electricity meter.
8. Controverting the argument of the petitioner,
counsel for respondent DVB argued that the tariff rules
do not allow bifurcation of the electricity unit
consumed by the petitioner through a meter which was in
working order and billing the petitioner at concessional
rate of tariff in respect of some units on the
assumption that those were used on the ground floor. It
is submitted that the Bijli Adalat has already granted
relief to the petitioner when he approached it for
withdrawal of the wrong billing in respect of the
damaged meter. He submitted that the connecting wires
of the damaged meter to the second live meter was in
contravention of the Electricity Act and the rules
framed there under for which mis-use charges could be
levied but the DVB has not levied them in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. He further
submitted that the claim of the petitioner whether it is
in respect of the alleged excess payment on account of
billing of the electricity consumed at the maximum
tariff rate of Rs. 3 per unit or on account of the
payment of the cost of the electricity meter are not
refundable to the petitioner.
9. I have given careful consideration to the
arguments advanced by the parties at the bar. For
appreciating the arguments, the facts of the case may be
recapitulated briefly as follows. The petitioner had
two electricity meters installed in his house. One
meter supplied electricity to the ground floor and the
second feeded it to the first floor. In August, 1989
the electricity meter which supplied electricity to the
ground floor got damaged. The staff of the respondent
DVB which came to attend the complaint was of the view
that there was some internal defect in the meter and it
required replacement. Allegedly in order to ensure
continued electricity supply to the ground floor portion
of the house, the live electricity wire of the damaged
meter was connected to the live electricity meter
installed for the first floor. Consequently, the second
meter recorded the reading for the consumption of the
electricity not only for the first floor but also used
in the ground floor. Till then between September, 1989
and December, 1995 the petitioner paid for the
electricity consumed on the ground floor as per the
electricity bills pertaining to the second meter.
During this period the DESU wrongly billed the
petitioner in respect of the damaged meter at load
basis. On the petitioner’s protest and representation
against it, this mistake was corrected and the demand
was withdrawn before Bijli Adalat. Up-to-date
electricity charges as per bills raised for the two
electricity connections have now been paid by the
petitioner.
10. The short controversy is whether the DESU ought
to have billed the electricity supplied through the
second meter to the ground floor at the concessional
lower rate of tariff for first 300 units consumed there.
The petitioner has not been able to point out any
provisions under the Electricity Act or rules framed
there under or the tariff rules under which a consumer
will be entitled to be charged at the concessional rate
for first 300 units in case the electricity is supplied
through one meter to two different premises in the same
building, one of which was previously receiving the
electricity through a properly installed meter. In
fact, the connection of the electricity wires of the
ground floor portion to the electricity meter installed
for the first floor is in violation of the agreement
between the DESU/DVB and the consumer and contravention
of the Electricity Act and the rules framed there under.
It could not have been done legally. If some
unscrupulous and irresponsible official of the
respondent in order to save the petitioner from any
inconvenience and hardship, connected the wires of the
ground floor with the electricity meter of the first
floor, the respondent could not have been blamed for it.
Indeed there is considerable delay in the replacement of
the damaged electricity meter by the respondent but the
petitioner knew from the beginning in 1989 that the
electricity which he was using on the ground floor was
being received through the electricity meter of the first
floor. He was bound to pay for the electricity as per
the meter reading and cannot be heard complaining that
it was done by the DVB staff for a short period which
prolonged to over six years. The contention of the
petitioner that during this period he had been
contacting the respondent for replacement of the meter
will not entitle him to the benefit of a lower tariff
for the first 300 units on the assumption that almost
half of the electricity was being used in the ground
floor. The tariff rules allowed billing of units up to
first 300 units at a lower concessional rate but it
could not have divided the meter reading of the second
meter in order to give benefit of concessional lower
rate to the petitioner in two portions.
11. Moreover, how much units of electricity was being
actually consumed on the ground floor cannot be
determined on an assumption or the consumption pattern
for the subsequent period or for the periods prior to
1989 or subsequent to January, 1996. It is a
contentious issue which cannot be determined in the writ
jurisdiction by this court. The dispute about excess
billing or refund of cost of meter replaced may be
agitated in a civil suit or any other civil proceedings.
But the petitioner is invoking the extraordinary,
discretionary jurisdiction of this court for recovery of
a certain amount which he is alleged to have paid to the
respondent in excess of what he would have paid had the
damaged electricity meter been replaced in August, 1989
i.e. within the period of seven days as per electricity
rules. But he admitted that the electricity was
consumed through the electricity meter which was meant
for the first floor.
12. It cannot be denied that the normal remedy for
obtaining refund of excess payment made to State or the
instrumentality of the State is by filing a suit in a
civil court. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in
Geetha Timbers v. State of Kerala, 1990(1) KLT 402
made the following observation which aptly apply to this
case as well:
“This Court has held time and
again that in contractual matters writ
petition will not normally be
entertained. For enforcement of
contractual rights parties should avail
remedies by way of civil suit and should
not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
available under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.”
13. In Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Another v. Ram
Bahadur Thakur Pvt. Ltd., it was
observed:
“Senior counsel for the
appellants was right when he contended
that if it was felt by the Court that
highly disputed question of facts arose
for its decision the writ petitioners
could have been relegated to the remedy
by way of a civil suit where matter could
have been thrashed out on proper
evidence.”
14. Similar view was taken in Mrs. Sheela Thomas and
Others v. The State of Kerala and Another and State of U.P. and Others v. Bridge &
Roof Company (India) Ltd., and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathi, .
15. In this case the petitioner claims refund of
excess amount which needs evidence for its
determination. The writ jurisdiction is not the
appropriate remedy for all the dispute raised in this
writ. The extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of
the court vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot be exercised by the court in order to grant
relief to the petitioner in this case.
16. The grievance of the petitioner that the
allegation of the DVB before the conciliatory court or
Bijli Adalat that it was a case of the mis-use of the
electricity, to my view is not relevant since it is not
disputed that no mis-use charges as leviable under the
tariff rules were ever imposed upon the petitioner.
17. Having regard to the above discussion, I do not
find any merit in the petition. It is dismissed. But
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
parties are left to bear their own costs.