SARANG STEEL FABRICATORS Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE electrical installation at petitioner's unit at Belgaum bears the R. R. No. M. 62/75. On 29/30-7-1993, the said electrical installation was inspected and rated by the officials of the Karnataka Electricity Board. They found that the meter was recording 50. 4% slow, as per Inspection Report dated 30-7-1993 (Annexure A) furnished to petitioner. The petitioner endorsed on the said report that it was not accepting the report and also filed its objections, contending that it will not accept any back billing claim. Again the electrical installation was inspected on 20-9-1993 and a report dated 20-9-1993 was issued to the petitioner stating that the meter was recording 51. 99% slow. The petitioner filed its objections dated 21-9-1993 and requested that the dispute be referred to the Electrical Inspector for decision. Thereafter, the Board issued a back billing claim notice dated 27-9-1993 (Annexure E) stating that a sum of Rs. 57,370-65 is due on account of back billing on account of revising the bills for the period 25-11-1987 to 20-9-1993 on account of slow recording of the meter as a consequence of improper connection of CTS. By the said notice, KES also called upon the petitioner to deposit the said sum with the Electrical Inspector within seven days under Section 24 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ('the Act' for short ). Petitioner was also informed that if it failed to do so, the electricity supply to the installation will be disconnected.

(2.) PETITIONER contends that where the Board claims that the meter was recording slow and makes any revised demand in that behalf, the Board cannot require deposit under the proviso to Section 24 (2) of the Act. Petitioner further contends that where Board alleges slow recording, it has to refer the dispute relating to the claim on account of such slow recording to the Electrical Inspector and until a decision is rendered by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Act, the consumer will not become liable to make any additional payment. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition challenging the demand for pre-deposit and has sought quashing of the demand Annexure-E dated 27-9-1993.

(3.) THE Board does not deny that the dispute relating to a claim relating to slow recording has to be referred to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Act, for his decision. The Board, however, contends that in regard to all disputes which are referred or referable to the Electrical Inspector, the Board can demand deposit of the disputed amount by the consumer with the Electrical Inspector and if the consumer fails to comply, discontinue the supply of electricity. Reliance is placed by the Board on a Division Bench decision of this Court in H. M. P. Cements Limited v. KEB (W. A. No. 306/1994, decided on 16-3-1994) and a decision of a learned single Judge in P. C. George v. Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Karnataka (W. P. No. 21354/1989, decided on 6-12-1989 ). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in S. E. Board v. Prakash Talkies, AIR 1977 All 460 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. v. State Electricity Board, AIR 1991 AP 269.