Uddam Singh Jain Charitable Trust vs New Delhi Municipal Council
2011 Latest Caselaw 145 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 11th January, 2011

+                              W.P.(C) No.6262/2010

%        UDDAM SINGH JAIN CHARITABLE
         TRUST                              ..... PETITIONER
                     Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati & Mr. B.K. Sahu,
                              Advocates.

                                      Versus

    NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL          ..... RESPONDENTS
                 Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate with Mr.
                           Panini Gupta, Executive Engineer
                           (Commercial), NDMC.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                   No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?            No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported           No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the disconnection of electric supply to the

premises of the petitioner for the reason of the demand of approximately

`10,00,000/- towards arrears of electricity charges. It is the contention of

the petitioner that inspite of earlier dues of electricity having been cleared

and a new meter being installed, again arrears were being shown without

any explanation. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the

multiplying factor of 1x40 has been applied in computing the electricity

charges without any basis.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent NDMC has filed

counter affidavit to which rejoinder has been filed.

3. It is inter alia the contention of the respondent NDMC that the

petitioner had agreed to pay the entire amount and by filing the present

petition is back tracking. Reliance in this regard is placed on the letter dated

16th March, 2010 of the petitioner to the respondent NDMC whereunder the

petitioner had paid `3,00,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount in

three installments.

4. However since the basis for the demand appeared to be the imposition

of the multiplying factor of 1x40 as aforesaid, it was enquired from the

respondent NDMC as to why the said multiplying factor was being applied.

5. The respondent NDMC in its counter affidavit has stated that the load

of the electricity connection of the petitioner is 80 KW and for all

connections of over 30KW, current transformer is to be provided for

metering purposes; that the current transformer represents the ratio between

the electricity used and the current being read by the meter i.e. if the

consumption is of 200 amperes of electricity, the meter would read 50

amperes only requiring the application of the multiplying factor of 40. It is

further pleaded that the electricity connection of the petitioner was earlier

provided with a current transformer with a multiplying factor of 2 till

December, 2002; thereafter a new meter with multiplying factor of 2/3 was

installed and with effect from 14th March, 2008, upon change in meter, the

current transformer with a multiplying factor of 1x40 was installed.

6. The counsel for the respondent NDMC has today in Court handed

over the electricity consumption of the petitioner when the multiplying

factor was of 2/3 and when the multiplying factor was of 40/1. From a

perusal thereof no unreasonable fluctuation in electricity consumption is

found. When the multiplying factor was of 2/3 also, the electricity

consumption was varying from 46193 units bi-monthly to 5053 units bi-

monthly. Similarly with the multiplying factor of 1x40, the electricity

consumption is varying from 34000/- units to 8600 units bi-monthly. The

units consumed with the multiplying factor of 1x40 are far below the units

consumed during the earlier meter with a multiplying factor of 2/3 and with

respect whereto no objection at any time was raised by the petitioner. The

petitioner has not set out any reason for such drastic reduction in

consumption of units as reflected in the meter. It is rather not the case of the

petitioner that consumption was reduced.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent NDMC

has not disclosed as to why the multiplying factor of 40 is being applied.

With reference to the documents handed over by the respondent NDMC on

the last date of hearing, it is shown that respondent NDMC with respect to

different electricity connections in the neighbourhood of the premises of the

petitioner has been using different multiplying factor, without explaining

any basis therefor.

8 The counsel for the respondent NDMC under instructions from Mr.

Panini Gupta, Executive Engineer (Commercial) who is stated to be a

technical person states that the imposition of multiplying factor is dependent

upon the current transformer ratio relatable to the sanctioned load and since

the sanctioned load of different meters is different, the multiplying factor

would also vary.

9. On the basis of the records, no mala fide or arbitrariness in the action

of the respondent NDMC can be found for this Court to interfere. The

counsel for the respondent NDMC has also stated that the respondent

NDMC has also set up a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF)

under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the petitioner can approach

the said fora for further grievance, if any.

10. Before parting with the matter, it may also be noted that the petitioner

was a tenant in the premises aforesaid and an order of eviction has already

been passed against the petitioner and the SLP preferred by the petitioner to

the Apex Court was dismissed on 6th October, 2010 granting six months

time to the petitioner to vacate subject to filing the usual undertaking.

The petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 11th January, 2011 'gsr'