KAMAT HOTEL HUBLI Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition calls in question an order dated 24th january, 1991 whereby the second respondent-assistant executive engineer has determined a sum of Rs. 27,775/- as due and payable by the petitioner on account of the alleged slow recording of the electric energy consumed through the meter installed in the premises. The challenge arises in the following background:

(2.) THE vigilance squad of the respondent-board visited the hotel premises of the petitioner at hubli and carried out a check of the meter installed in the premises for recording the electrical energy consumed. The result of the meter calibration carried out by the squad is said to have disclosed that the meter was recording 35. 25% less of the energy actually consumed on account of an improper contact in the middle phase of the c. t. wire (current transfer wire ). The error it is claimed by the board was rectified, but based on the meter testing report as well as the report of the vigilance squad, a bill for a sum of Rs. 27,775/- raised in terms of regulation 28 of the Karnataka electricity board electricity supply regulations, 1988. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in the present proceedings assailing the demand as indicated earlier.

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioner Mrs. Suman hegde, advocate,mounted a twofold attack on the impugned order. Firstly, it was argued that the respondents had no authority to raise a bill against the petitioner in the light of the Provisions contained in Section 26 (6) of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 according to which, in the event of any dispute or difference arising as to the correctness of a meter, the same has to be decided by the electrical inspector, who may, if he comes to the conclusion that the meter was not correct, estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such period not exceeding six months. It was urged that the allegation made by the respondent suggested that the meter installed in the petitioner's premises was not correct, thereby attracting the Provisions of Section 26 (6) and making the electrical inspector the sole arbiter for determining the said dispute. Reliance was in support, placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh electricity board and others v Smt. Basantibai.