KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. TOPASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ appeal the question of law which arises for consideration is: Whether a dispute arising out of under recording of consumption of electricity by an electrical meter, it is for the Board or it is for the consumer, to have the matter decided by the electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910?

(2.) Brief facts of the case arc these: the respondent is running a hotel at Hubli city. At his business premises two meters have been installed for the purpose of recording the quantum of electric power consumed. One meter is in respect of lighting and the other is for power and heating. On 4th August, 1987 the technical audit staff and the meter testing staff of the electricity Board made a surprise inspection of the premises of the respondent. Accord ing to the appellants, both the meters were tested with the assistance of an equipment meant for the purpose and it was found that the power meter was under recording to the extent of 23% and the lighting meter was under-recording to the extent of 11.2%. In the circumstances the officer of the Board made bacK billing of electricity charges. two bills were delivered to the respondent. One was for Rs. 1,261.60 i.e., in respect of lighting and another for Rs. 16,046/- in respect of heating and power. Questioning the legality of the bills and notices to pay the said amounts, the respondents presented the writ petition.

(3.) In the writ petition it was contended for the respondent that the Board had no authority to demand any amount towards consumption of electricity for any past period on the ground that the meter was defective and that it was under recording unless the matter was referred to the electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act and the electrical Inspector gave a finding to the effect that the meter was under-recording. As against this, it was the contention of the appellant that when prima facie the authorities of the Board had found after test ing meters through the equipment meant for the purpose that the meters were under-recording the consumption of electricity, it was for the respondent consumer to have approached the electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act. the learned Judge however accepted the contention of the respondent and in doing so, the learned Judge relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh electricity Board and Others v Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71. Accordingly, he allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the ap pellants have presented this appeal. the con tention urged by the appellants and the respondent in the appeal are the same as those urged before the learned Judge.