Delhi Brass And Metal Works ... vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1100 Del

JUDGMENT

C.K. Mahajan, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the bill dated 5.11.1998 for Rs.9,12,418.81 and revised bill dated 17.12.1998 to the extent that it shows previous arrears of Rs.5,12,418/- and previous arrear surcharge of Rs.42,746/- and a direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner as security along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Briefly the facts are that on 19.9.1997, petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents that one of the installed meters was giving erratic reading in respect of power factor. On 8.10.1997, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards testing of the meter. However the testing was not done. It is alleged that during routine inspection on 17.7.1998, officers of the respondent entered a meter reading of contract demand. The meter reading shown was 479.3x6, i.e., 2875 whereas the consistent conract demand of the factory of the petitioner had been 62.6x6, i.e., 375. Therefore, a bill for Rs.9,12,418.81 dated 12.11.1998 for the period 23.1.1997 to 17.7.1998 was raised, even though the contract demand reading was taken on 17.7.1998. It is stated that there was no basis or reason for raising the bill w.e.f. 23.1.1997. On petitioner approaching the respondents to withdraw the bill, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.

3. The aforesaid amount was deposited by the petitioner. However, later on, the respondent instead of withdrawing the bill, enhanced the bill by demanding Rs.5,12,418/- as arrears and late payment surcharge of Rs.42,746/- without furnishing any basis or calculation.

4. Hence the present petition.

5. The petition is opposed by the respondents. It is stated that the bill was raised on the basis of the inspection carried and the factual facts as found at the time of inspection. On 17.7.1998, the inspection was carried out and it was found that the consumption as recorded by the meter was not reliable and not comparable with the pilot meter reading and as such the said meter was declared defective. Consumption pattern was analysed and it was noticed that consumption of the said connection has drasticaly dropped since installation of the meter on 23.1.1997. Therefore, supplementary bill amounting to Rs.9,12,418.48 was raised for the period 23.1.1997 to 17.7.1998 on the basis of the recording during the same period of the previous year, i.e., w.e.f. 1.7.1995 to 23.1.1997. It is also stated that process for settlement was carried out but the petitioner was not agreeable for settlement.

6. It is also stated that as per the guidelines, in case of defective meter, where accuracy is not within the permissible limits, amount of energy shall be assessed by complying the correction factor for a period of 6 months reckoned from the date of complaint/report. The petitioner made a complaint about mal-functioning of the meter on 19.9.1997. Therefore, as per the guidelines, the assessment bill can be raised from 19.3.1997 till the date of replacement of the meter, i.e., 17.7.1998. As such the petitiner is liable to pay the assessment bill for the period 19.3.1997 to 17.7.1998. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Further Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 19??0 is not applicable and public money being involved, the petition be dismissed. The petitioner ought to have approached the Electrical Inspector under Section 26. This was not done.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent also states that though the meter was replaced on 17.7.1998, but the petitioner continued to consume electricity during the period 19.9.1997 to 17.7.1998 and therefore it is bound to pay the electricity charges to the respondent.

8. In its rejoinder, the petitioner states that the contention of the respondent that assessment bill is to be raised six months reckoned back from the date of the complaint is contrary to the guidelines. It is stated that as per the guidelines the meter should have been replaced within a maximum period of 30 days failing which action should have been taken against the defaulting officer. The respondent has ignored the said guidelines. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondent is taking advantage of it own wrongs and is billing the petitioner for a period far in excess of 6 months, i.e., much beyond the period as stipulated under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act.

9. It is also stated that to avoid unnecessary harassment, the petitioner made the payment of Rs.5,15,125.44 without prejudice and under protest on 28.3.2001. It is also stated that there is no uniformity with regard to the consumption of electricity in garment export industry and hence the basis taken by the respondent for raising the bill is wrong. The demand for electricity in a garment export unit varies from time to time. There are other meters installed at the premises of the petitioner. The respondet should have calculated the consumption of energy relying upon the other meters.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner made complaint about erratic reading in one of its meters on 19.9.1997. The petitioner deposited the amount for testing on 8.10.1997. Testing was not done. The new meter was installed on 17.7.1998. On the basis of the inspection carried out by the respondents on 17.7.1998, the respondent raised the assessment bill six months reckoned back from the date of complaint till the date of installation of the meter.

11. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 reads as under :-

''(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 license 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 to do so.''

12. The grievance of the petitioner is that the six months period should have been taken reckoned from the date of installation of the meter and not from the date of the complaint. Even if the six months period is to be taken from the date of the complaint, the meter should have been replaced immediately or within a maximum period of thirty days from the date of the complaint.

13. The above controversy has been resolved by this Court in the case of H.D. Shourie Vs. Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi and Anr. wherein it was held that :-

''..... the maximum period for which a bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter is six months and no more. Therefore, even if a meter has been defective for, say a period of five years, the revised charge can be for a period not exceeding six months. The reason for this is obvious. It is the duty and obligation of the licensee to maintain and check the meter. If there is a default then it is obvious that the consumer should not be unduly penalised at a later point of time and a large bill raise. The provision for a bill not to exceed six months would possibly ensure better checking and maintenance by the licensee.''

14. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU) Vs. Mr. H. D. Shourie 53 (1994) DLT 1 (DB).

15. In Major Zorawar Singh Vs. M.C.D. and Anr. , this Court while following the judgment in the case of Mr. H.D. Shourie (supra) ordered for refund of the amount recovered from the petitioner with 12% interest.

16. In light of the aforesaid settled position of law, the petition is allowed. The impugned bill dated 5.11.1998 for Rs.9,12,418.81 and the revised bill dated 17.12.1998 to the extent that it shows previous arrears of Rs.5,12,418/- and previous arrear surch arge of Rs.42,746/- are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from today.

17. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.