Delhi High Court
Dr. Abdul Khalique vs Ministry Of Transport & Power on 3 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10272/2006 Date of decision: 3rd March, 2010.
DR.ABDUL KHALIQUE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M. Taiyab Khan, Advocate.
versus
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT & POWER .... Respondent
Through Mr. Ramesh Pd. Yadav,
Advocate for BSES.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
%
1. The electricity connection in question is installed in a Nursing
Home at Yamuna Vihar Shahdara, Delhi. Electricity bills as per the
actual consumption were raised and paid by the petitioner up to
October, 2004. Thereafter, the respondent, discom raised provisional
bills without taking actual meter reading, though this is contrary to
Regulation 21 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance
Standards Regulations. The petitioner made payment of the provisional
bills amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- as raised by the respondent, discom
for the period October, 2004 till 31st March, 2006.
2. The petitioner in May, 2006 received a bill of Rs. 80,80,576.72/-
towards electricity consumption. The said bill was subsequently revised
W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 1
to Rs. 6,76,200.29/- vide bill dated 31st May, 2006. The petitioner by
way of the present writ petition has challenged the said bill.
3. The respondent, discom in their counter affidavit have admitted
that incorrect bill for Rs. 80,80,576.72/- was raised. It is stated that this
was on account of the fact that the meter had recorded very high and
unusual consumption of 13,92,617 units as on 1st May, 2006. Thus, the
respondent, discom have admitted that the meter was defective and,
therefore, had recorded very high and unusual consumption of
electricity. The contention of the respondent, discom is that the meter
was not faulty up to 1st April, 2006 as the same was recording normal
actual consumption till the said date. It is stated that on the basis of
meter readings up to 1st April, 2006, the respondent, discom has raised
a bill for Rs. 6,76,200.29/- for consumption of 78196 units from 11th
September, 2004 to 8th August, 2005. It is stated that during this period
the meter had recorded consumption of about 7100 units per month
and the provisional bills were raised @ 2000 units per month,
therefore, the demand of Rs. 6,76,200.29/- is correct and justified.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the meter was defective
throughout the said period and even before 1st April, 2006.
5. On 13th September, 2005, the petitioner had made a
W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 2
representation to the respondent, discom stating that the meter was
defective and should be replaced as it was recording very high
consumption. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the meter
testing report dated 19th October, 2005. As per the said report, the
meter was faulty. Thus, the respondent themselves on the basis of the
report, came to the conclusion that the meter was faulty as on 19th
October, 2005. Once a meter is found to be defective, the respondent,
discom are duty bound to carry out assessment and raise bills in terms
of the Regulation 21 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and
Performance Standards Regulations for the past period as specified.
The respondent, discom has failed to calculate the payment due and
payable in terms of the said regulation. Full play and effect to the
regulation has to be given. After the new meter was installed on 22nd
May, 2006, the consumption of the petitioner has been between 2500
units to 786 units per month. Average consumption has been less than
1500 units per month. Therefore, the bill raised by the respondent,
discom on the basis that the petitioner was consuming 7100 units per
month as per the installed meter is clearly wrong. The meter was
defective as accepted in the inspection report. The respondent, discom
has also failed to download and examine CMRI data. The impugned bill
W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 3
is accordingly quashed. However, it is left open to the respondent,
discom to calculate the user charges in terms of the Regulation 21 of
the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards
Regulations after giving notice and hearing the petitioner. The
petitioner has already deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- pursuant to inter order
passed by the Court. Credit of the said amount will be given to the
petitioner. In case, an adverse order is passed by the respondent,
discom, the petitioner is at liberty to redress his grievance in
accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 03, 2010
NA
W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 4
