Mumbai Municipal Corporation Of ... vs Minister For State (Energy) And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 600 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. None present for respondent No. 2 and 3, though served.

2. Limited challenge to the impugned judgment in the case in hand is related to the absence of jurisdiction to the Electrical Engineer under Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to deal with the cases more particularly in relation to stopped meters or correctness or incorrectness of the meter provided to consumers for recording the consumption of electric supply.

3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that pursuant to the inspection it was revealed to the petitioners that the meter supplied to the respondent No. 2 for recording of consumption of electric supply had stopped working since October, 1993, a supplementary bill on the basis of average monthly consumption was issued by the petitioner to the respondent on 12-6-1996 for the period from 16-9-1995 to 3-4-1996. Pursuant to the representation by the respondent No. 2 that the bill was on higher side, the matter was reconsidered and after various deliberations it was reduced to Rs. 32,75,883.52 paise from Rs. 43,77,858.72 paise as was originally issued. On repeated demands for the payment of the said amount, the respondent No. 2 purported to raise the dispute before the Electrical Inspector under letter dated 29-7-1997 and in spite of objection on the part of the petitioner, the matter was entertained by the Electrical Inspector. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Inspector, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 which is the appellate authority in the matter. By the impugned order the respondent No. 1 while dealing with the matter on merits also held that even though in the matters pertaining to the stopped meters the Electrical Inspector may not have the jurisdiction under Section 26(2) of the said Act, nevertheless, the Electrical Inspector will have jurisdiction to deal with such matters under Section 24(2) of the said Act and this finding relating to the alleged jurisdiction of the Inspector under Section 24(2) is sought to be challenged in this petition.

4. Drawing attention to the provisions of law contained in Section 24(2) and placing reliance the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Sapyah Trust and Sarkar Trust and Ors, reported in 2002(2) Mh.LJ. 558 = AIR 2002 Bombay 315 and of the Apex Court in the matter of Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd., and Ors v. Union of India, , the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Electrical Inspector does not enjoy any jurisdiction to deal with any dispute either in relation to the stopped meter or in relation to the correctness or incorrectness of the meter under Section 24(2) and the provisions of law contained therein clearly speak about the obligation of the license to restrain itself from disconnecting the supply in the circumstances mentioned therein and, therefore, the decision of respondent No. 1 holding that the Electrical Inspector can entertain the dispute under Section 24(2) is totally incorrect.

5. Section 24(2) reads thus :--

"24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge.-

(1)................

(2) Where any difference or dispute which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section until the Inspector has given his decision.

Provided that the prohibition contained in this sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with the Electrical Inspector of the amount of the licensee's charges or other sums in dispute or for the deposit of the licensee's further charges for energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request."

A bare reading of Section 24(2) quoted above would disclose that it nowhere speaks about the jurisdiction of the Electrical Engineer to deal with any dispute as such. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it deals with the restriction imposed upon the licensee in relation to the disconnection of electrical supply under certain circumstances. It merely provides that when the dispute is pending before the Electrical Engineer the licensee should not adopt coercive methods of discontinuation of electrical supply unless there is failure on the part of the consumer to comply with the request made, by the licensee in writing as provided in the proviso to the said section. It merely therefore speaks about the restriction imposed upon the licensee in the matter of discontinuation of electrical supply to the consumer when the matter is pending for adjudication before the Electrical Inspector and it nowhere relates to the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector to deal with the dispute or difference arising under the said Act. Indeed, as regards the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector to deal with the dispute arising under the Act, the specific provision is to be found under Section 26(2) of the said Act. In fact the decision of the learned Single Judge in Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Sapyah Trust and Sarkar Trust and Ors (supra) is very clear in that regard. It has been clearly held therein that Section 26(6) of the said Act deals only with the situation where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct. The Section 24(2) of the said Act merely states that where any difference or dispute which is to be determined by the Electrical Inspector is pending before him then the licensee shall not exercise its power to disconnect the supply until the Inspector has given his decision. Similarly the Apex Court in Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd., case has also ruled :--

"Sub-section (6) of Section 26 contemplates a difference or dispute, where one party contends that the meter has rightly recorded the energy supplied while the other controverts that position and contends that it has not correctly recorded the supply of electrical energy. If such a dispute arises between the parties, the matter is required to be decided by an Electrical Inspector and it is he who can pronounce upon the question as to whether the meter was or was not correct."

6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 discloses that the conclusion that the Electrical inspector can deal with the disputes between the licensee and the consumer under Section 24(2) of the said Act was arrived at without considering the scope of the said section. The respondent No. 1 therein has merely observed thus:

"Even though this is a stopped meter case and even though the Section 26(2) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is not applicable still if the Opponent has any doubt of determination of electricity consumption then these matters can come under the Electrical Inspector's jurisdiction under Section 24(2)."

The respondent No. 1 has not taken any pain to analyze the provisions of law contained under Section 24(2) to ascertain whether it at all deals with the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector in any manner or not. Apparently the conclusion has been drawn without application of mind and without ascertaining the scope and nature of the provisions of law contained in Section 24(2) of the said Act and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

7. As already held above, Section 24(2) does not deal with the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector to deal with any dispute as such but it merely relates to the restriction imposed upon the licensee in the matter of discontinuation of the electrical supply to the consumer in given circumstances and, therefore, the finding arrived at by the respondent No. 1 regarding the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector under Section 24(2) is hereby set aside as being bad in law.

8. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order as far as it deals with the scope of Section 24(2) of the said Act in relation to the alleged jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector to deal with the disputes between the parties is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.

Parties to act on ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Private Secretary/Associate of this Court.