K V INDIRA Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the billissued as at Annexure 'a' demanding asum of Rs. 18,091-10 by the respondentkarnataka electricity board. Bill is dated19-4-1988. From the contents ofannexure-a, it is clear that the said amountis claimed on account of the faulty meterwhich was found reading 45 per cent slowthereby recording that much less energyconsumption in respect of the installationof the PETITIONER.the Karnataka electricity boardregulations which were at the relevant pointof time in force, provide in clause (a) ofregulation 28, method of billing inrespect of consumption of energy by aninstallation on account of faulty meter.annexure-a displays the manner in whichthe back billing has been done. Themeter was found to be faulty on 25-1-1988.it is thereafter that the billing has beendone. The recorded consumption foraugust, 1987, September 1987, october1987, November 1987, December 1987and January 1988 are taken into account.as recorded by the faulty meter andthereafterwards, apparently 45 per cent isadded to the actual consumption recordedand the difference claimed. This is notthe method or procedure provided underclause (a) of regulation 28 of thekarnataka electricity board regulations whichwere in force at the relevant point oftime. Clause (a) of regulation 28 readsas follows :- "28.01 should the consumerdispute the accuracy of the board's meter,he may upon giving notice and payingthe prescribed fee, have the same testedby the board or the electrical inspector.in the event of the meter being testedby the board and found to be incorrectbeyond the limits of accuracy prescribed in the rules, the cost of testing and all reasonable expenses incidental thereto, shall be met by the board and the amount of the bill adjusted in accordance with the result of test taken, with respect to the meter readings of the 3 billing months prior to the month in which the dispute has arisen, due regard being paid to the conditions of the working, occupancy, etc., during the previous 3 months." notices were issued on 12-5-1988. Respondent - board has been served and represented. No statement of objection has been filed. To-day the matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice, counsel for electricity board is absent. Therefore, this matter is disposed of placing the board exparte. as there is no denial of the allega tions made by the PETITIONER and patently the impugned bill at annexure-a does not conform to any one of the modes specified in regulation 28(1) extracted above, the demand is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed with liberty reserved however to the board to proceed to issue fresh demand in accordance with law if the following conditions are satisfied : (1) that the meter is running slow by 45% must be demonstrated and established to the satisfaction of the consumer-PETITIONER; (2) one of the modes specified in clause (a) of regulation 28 must be followed in accordance with requirement of the situation in the case of the PETITIONER. Rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Writ petition allowed.