Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam ... vs M/S Makers Casting India Pvt. Ltd. on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 224 of 2022
The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited having its office at
Dhurwa P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, through its Senior
Manager (Legal) namely Arun Kumar Srivastava, aged about 55
years, son of Late R.K. Lal, resident of Gas Godown Road, P.O. &
P.S. - Namkum, District - Ranchi
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
M/s Makers Casting India Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated
under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 having its unit at B-
21, 3rd phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur P.O. & P.S.
Adityapur, Dist - East Singhbhum Jamshedpur, through its Sr.
Manager Accounts Sri Abhay Upadhayay, son of Sri Parmanand
Upadhayay, resident of - Katadih, New Colony, Tata Nagar, P.S. -
Parsudih, P.O. - Tata Nagar, Dist - Singhbhum East (Jharkhand)
... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A. - I
: Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate
---
Order No. 09/11th August 2023
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
This appeal has been filed against the order
dated 09th December 2021 passed in W.P.(C). No.3117 of 2014
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order dated
17th August 2013 passed by Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran
Forum, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as "the
Forum") in Case No.05 of 2012. The petition before the Forum was
filed by the consumer-respondent herein for quashing the revised
energy bill dated 05th October 2011 for the month of September 2011
and also for quashing the energy bill dated 05th November 2011 for
the month of October 2011 which was raised on the basis of meter
reading of check meter.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the learned writ Court, while upholding the order
passed by the Forum, has failed to take into consideration that though
there was no allegation of any pilferage of electrical energy, but there
was difference to the extent of 16.78% in consumption of energy
inasmuch as recording of consumption of energy in the check meter
installed outside the factory premises was higher than that of the
consumption shown in the main meter installed inside the premises of
the factory. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the learned
counsel for the appellant has also submitted that certain directions
have been made by the learned writ Court asking the appellant to take
steps against the erring officers for recovery of any loss of revenue.
The learned counsel submits that such observation made by the
learned writ Court calls for interference and appropriate order may be
passed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of
the appellant and has submitted that there is no legal basis to raise bills
on the basis of check meter when the meter installed in the premises of
the respondent was found correct in all respect.
5. The following foundational facts of the case are not in dispute:
(a) The respondent herein had established an induction furnace
unit in industrial area at Adityapur, Jamshedpur having
electricity connection at 11 KV voltage for contract demand
of 1200 KVA. The load was sanctioned under HTSS tariff
and the electricity supply commenced from 05th May 2010.
(b) The respondent paid all the energy bills till September 2011
on the basis of the consumption recorded by the meter
installed inside the factory premises of the respondent.
(c) The dispute started when revised energy bill for the month
of September 2011 was issued upon the respondent on the
basis of recordings in check meter which was installed
outside the factory premises and bill for the month of
October 2011 was also issued on the basis of recordings in
the aforesaid check meter. The dispute is in connection with
the aforesaid two months only.
(d) The respondent protested vide letter dated 03rd November
2011.
(e) Consequently, an inspection was carried out by the officers
of the appellant on 09th November 2011 but no adverse
report was made against the respondent.
(f) Protest was again made in connection with the bill for the
month of October 2011 raised on the basis of check meter
installed outside the factory premises of the respondent.
(g) The grievance of the respondent having not been redressed,
the respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)
No. 7049 of 2011 challenging the bills raised on the basis of
check meter installed outside the factory premises of the
respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
respondent was issued disconnection notice under
section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which was challenged
by filing I.A No.3622 of 2011 and interim relief was
also granted to the respondent vide order
dated 20th December 2011. The writ petition was dismissed
on 17th April 2012 on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy. The Appeal against the writ order was
also dismissed.
(h) Thereafter, the respondent filed Complaint Case
No.05 of 2012 before the aforesaid Forum challenging the
action of the appellant in raising the bills on the basis of
check meter installed outside the factory premises of the
respondent. The Forum framed the following issue for
consideration:
"4. On the basis of rival cases of the parties the
only issue is to be decided in this case is whether
the Board was just to install a check meter outside
of the petitioner's factory and Board raise energy
bills on the basis of reading of the consumption
recorded in check meter?"
6. The said issue was ultimately decided in favour of the
respondent vide order dated 17th August 2013 which was challenged
by the appellant in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed
by the order of the writ Court impugned in this Appeal.
7. The Forum decided the case in favour of the respondent by a
detailed order primarily on the ground that the impugned energy bills
could not have been raised on the basis of check meter installed
outside the factory premises as the meter which was installed by the
appellant inside of the premises of the respondent was checked on 09th
November 2011 and the main meter was not found defective. The
Forum recorded its findings at paragraph 5 of the order which are
quoted as under:
"5. The petitioner has taken ground for the quashing of energy
bill for the month of September 2011 & October 2011 which were
issued on the basis of check meter installed outside of the factory
premises. It is admitted by both party that main meter was installed
inside of the factory premises. The petitioner has not disputed the
bills upto August 2011 and paid the same. It is also admitted that
one check meter has been installed outside of the factory premises.
Chapter 13 of supply code is related with meter. On perusal of the
provisions mentioned in this chapter it appears that nothing has
been mentioned regarding check meter. The supply code issued
from JSERC prescribes that billing should be done on the basis of
meter installed in the premises of the consumer. There is no
provision in the supply code 2005 to bill a consumer on the basis of
check/test meter. The supply code issued by J.S.E.R.C. do not speak
about installation of check/Test Meter. In the instant case the meter
which was installed by the Board inside of the premises of the
consumer was checked on 9.11.11 and the main meter was not
found defective. So, there was no reason to raise bill on the basis of
check meter.
On behalf of O.P. load survey graph has been filed which shows
some mismatch of the energy but the Board had not taken any step
to curb the pilferage of energy. The Board was wrong to issue
revised bill to the consumer on the basis of check meter.
On the basis of discussion made above we are of the view that
board was not just to issue energy bills to the petitioner on the
basis of reading recorded in Check Meter and energy bill for the
month of September 2011 & October 2011 are liable to be
quashed. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the
petitioner.
It is therefore ordered that the petition of the petitioner is
allowed. The energy bill raised on the basis of Check Meter for the
month of September 2011 and October 2011 is hereby quashed.
The Board is directed to issue fresh energy bill of the aforesaid
months on the basis of reading recorded in main meter."
8. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the Forum. The
learned writ Court initially passed an order dated 23 rd November 2021
observing that the writ petition remained pending before this Court for
a long time and it remained defective also and, accordingly, the
learned writ Court passed an order directing the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of the appellant to look into such matters and take
remedial measures to protect the interest of the appellant and by taking
suitable steps against the erring officers.
9. Ultimately, the writ petition was decided by the impugned order
dated 09th December 2021 wherein the learned writ Court recorded
that as per the pleadings of the appellant, even after testing the
metering unit of the main meter of the respondent and the check
meter, there was no discrepancy detected by the appellant and
dismissed the writ petition. Before the writ Court, the respondent had
also relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of "M/s
Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and
Ors." 2015 SCC Online Jharkhand 1398 to submit that there was no
theft of electricity when no discrepancy was found in the meter
installed in the factory premises of the respondent. The learned writ
Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and
further made following observations/direction:-
"Before parting with the judgment, this Court has onus
that Jharkhand State Electricity Board should not suffer with any
revenue loss. This Court directs the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Electricity Board to recover the said amount from the
erring officers in accordance with law within a period of three
months, as it is the duty of the Engineer (erring officers) to remain
vigilant in his area for 24 hours to stop the pilferage of electrical
energy.
If he has any doubt about anything, the officer would
have been informed the superior officer or the local police station
to conduct such raid, but because of inaction on the part of an
official of Jharkhand State Electricity Board or Jharkhand Urja
Vikash Nigam Limited, the Board cannot suffer with revenue loss.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, liberty is given to the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Electricity Board to recover
the same from the erring officer in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of production of the order."
10. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to point out any provision of law either
under the Electricity Act, 2003 or under the Regulations or the Tariffs
framed thereunder under which the appellant could have raised bills
on the basis of check meter even if the meter installed in the premises
of the consumer was found to be correct. During the course of hearing,
the learned counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to make
any allegation of theft or pilferage of energy against the respondent
consumer on the basis of any materials placed on record.
11. This Court finds from the records of this case that admittedly
there is no allegation of any kind of pilferage or theft of energy against
the respondent. Admittedly, no assessment in terms of section 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 has been made; no First Information Report
has been registered and no case under section 135 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 has been filed against the respondent. It is further not in
dispute that during the course of inspection, no discrepancy or no
evidence of any kind of pilferage was found against the respondent. It
is also not in dispute that even the check meter as well as the meter
installed in the premises of the respondent was subsequently put to test
and none of the meters was found to be defective. It is also not in
dispute that the metering unit of the respondent is inspected by the
team of the appellant from time to time and there was no allegation
against the respondent regarding any tampering of metering unit or
tampering of any seal on the metering unit.
12. This Court has gone through the order passed by the Forum
which was impugned in the writ petition. This Court finds that the
Forum has given sound reasons while quashing the disputed bills
raised on the basis of check meter by holding that the electricity bills
could not have been raised on the basis of check meter in view of the
fact that at the relevant point of time, there was no provision for
raising electricity bills on the basis of check meter. The learned
counsel for the appellant has neither been able to point out violation of
any provision of law on the part of the respondent before the learned
writ Court nor any such violation has been pointed out before this
Court during the course of hearing.
13. This Court is of the considered view that once the meter is
installed in the premises of a consumer and there is no allegation of
tampering or theft of electricity, there was no basis for raising any bill
on the basis of check meter installed outside the premises of the
consumer particularly for the period involved in the present case when
there was no provision for raising bills on the basis of check meter
installed outside the premises of the consumer. The bills involved in
the present case are only for the month of September 2011 and
October 2011. The respondent has admittedly paid the bills as per
consumption recorded in the meter installed inside the factory
premises.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
is of the considered view that the learned writ Court has rightly
refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Forum.
15. So far as the observation made by the learned writ Court in
connection with any revenue loss and consequential order for recovery
is concerned, such direction does not survive any more as there was
neither any allegation of theft of electricity nor there was any material
alleging theft of electricity or pilferage of electricity against the
respondent.
16. This Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed with the
aforesaid observation.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/Pankaj-
