Delhi High Court
N.B. Mulchandani vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 31 August, 2005
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Petitioner prays:-
"issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to withdraw the following Bills in respect of premises M-108, Greater Kailash, New Delhi:
S.No. Bill No. METER No. DATE AMOUNT (RS.)
1. 35827 0972198 14.01.03 78,294.35
2. 35294 0972135 14.01.03 1,66,182.38
3. 17131 0972198 27.02.03 54,270.48
4. 17132 0972135 27.02.03 84,015.30
5. 21913 0972198 12.03.03 80,612.87
6. 21920 0972135 12.03.03 1,75,298.75
7. 21921 0577390 12.03.03 1,00,525.94
0186123
8. 21914 0329034 12.03.03 1,00,574.38
0343104
0828564"
2. Case pleaded is that following 10 meters were installed at premises No: M-108, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi.
S.No. METER No.
i. 37967
ii. 0380820
iii. 3076490
iv. 329034
v. 343104
vi. 828564
vii. 3005459
viii. 57739
ix. 186123
x. 876802
3. At request of the petitioner, on 27.6.1997, meter number 3076490, 329034, 343104 and 828564 were amalgamated and 1 meter No: 972198 was installed instead and meters number 3005459, 876802, 186123 and 577390 were amalgamated and 1 meter No. 972135 was installed. As a result petitioner was left with 4 meters as under:-
i. Meter No. 972198 (new)
ii. Meter No.972135 (new)
iii. Meter No.380820 (Old Meter)
iv. Meter No.379667 (Old Meter)
4. As per the petitioner he paid the bills as and when raised. All of a sudden on 14.1.2003 two bills were received. A sum of Rs. 1,68,640.53 for meter No:972135 was demanded and a sum of Rs. 76,382.21 for meter No:972198 were billed for. These bills showed adjustments in sum of Rs. 1,66,182.83 and Rs.78,294.35. These so called adjustments were in fact demands toward alleged arrears.
5. Petitioner made a representation questioning the bills. It was met with a response in shape of raid on 21.2.2003. It was alleged that petitioner had tempered with his meter No. 972198 and 972135. Bills in sum of Rs.54,270.48 and Rs.84,0135.30 respectively were raised alleging theft. Petitioner paid Rs.21,003.82 and Rs.13,562.62 respectively under the 2 bills, albeit under protest.
6. On 20.3.2003 petitioner received 4 bills as under:-
(i) Meter No. 0972198 - Rs. 80,612.87
(ii) Meter No. 0972135 - Rs.1,75,298.75
(iii) Meter No. 0577390 - Rs.1,00,525.94 and 0186125
(iv) Meter No. 0329034, - Rs.1,00,574.38
343104 and 0828564
7. Bills were for arrears of alleged electricity consumed. They were raised on average billing.
8. Case of the petitioner is that 6 meters No. 329034, 343104, 828564, 577390, 0186123 and 0379667 were amalgamated with 2 others in June 1997 and all previous bills were paid. Respondent could not revise the bills or create any demand for alleged electricity consumed for these meters after nearly 6 years.
9. Qua bills raised on alleged theft, petitioners case is that without supplying the inspection report and without granting an opportunity of rebutting it, theft bills could not be raised.
10. As per the respondent, previous meters which were amalgamated on 27.6.97 were defective and accordingly, based on new consumption pattern, bills were raised from 27.6.94 to 27.6.97.
11. It is not in dispute that for the period in question i.e. 27.6.94 to 27.6.97, Electricity Act 1910 governed metering and billing disputes. It that be so, Section 26(6) prohibits raising of any demand beyond a period of six months.
12. Further, demand cannot be raised as and when respondent pleases.
13. Demand raised towards arrears in the impugned bills is accordingly quashed. Respondent is prohibited from effecting any recovery qua said bills.
14. For the theft bills, admittedly neither a show cause nor hearing has been granted. The theft bills are quashed on said count. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to supply a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner together with a show cause notice. Petitioner would be heard. Speaking order would be passed. If decision is against the petitioner, respondent would be permitted to raise a bill for theft.
15. Petition stands disposed of as per paras 13 and 14 above.
16. No costs.
