TOPASA RAMASA PATIL Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is an owner of a hotel. He has two installations of electric meters hi his business premises, namely, R.R.No.CH 13.5 MPI B. 24 and 16711, B26. While the one is a power meter, the other is a light meter. The respondents have raised two bills as per Annexures F and G filed in the petition. A perusal of those two bills discloses that backbilling has been done due to slow recording of the above meters. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents under Annexures F and G on the ground that the Electricity Board had no jurisdiction to conclude that a particular meter is functioning correctly or not or whether the same is not recording the actual energy consumed or is recording slowly. According to the petitioner, such a dispute squarely falls within the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition should not be entertained in as much as the petitioner has an alternative remedy as provided under Electricity Supply Regulations and the petitioner could also raise a dispute before the Electrical Inspector as provided under Section 26 of the Electricity Act.

(2.) The points that arise for consideration in this petition are as follows :-

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the Electricity Board had no jurisdiction to decide that a meter for an electrical installation is not recording the electrical energy consumed correctly and resort to backbilling on that ground. I am of the view that it is not proper to relegate the parties to the alternative remedy as the question involved in this petition goes to the root of the matter. In the circumstances, I consider it necessary to go into first question as I am not inclined to dispose of the matter on the second question that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents, sought for time to file his objections. Since the matter is one relating to interpretation of the relevant statute and its applicability and the facts involved in the case are fairly simple and do not require detailed traversal, it is unnecessary to grant any adjournment for the purpose of filing statement of objections.