BRIGHT PLASTICS BANGALORE Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has established a Small Scale Industrial Unit at new Guddadahalli in the suburbs of Bangalore City. It has secured an electric connection from the respondent-Board, which was inspected by the Board authorities on 24th of August, 1987. The inspection revealed that the main cover seal of the energy meter and the impression MTD-2 were tampered with and scratched. A mahazar was drawn up on spot, which was signed by proprietor of the petitioner. The mahazar recorded that the difference between the original seal and the meddled seal with scratches on it were shown to the consumer and that the consumer had made a statement that the matter should not be reported to the Police as he was ready to pay the back-billing charges at penal rates so as to make good the loss suffered by the Board. A back-billing demand was in due course raised by the Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of Annexure-A dated 7th of september, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,23,801/ -. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Chief engineer, who confirmed the said demand. While doing so, the Chief Engineer recorded the testimony of one Sri S. R. Narasimha Murthy, according to whom, the main cover meter seal was not clear and had scratches on it and that the meter was recording 50% slow. The meter was according to the witness calibrated and rectified. Although an opportunity was offered to the consumer to cross-examine the witness, the consumer did not do so as according to him there was no need for any cross-examination. The Chief Engineer concluded that the impression on the seal was not clear and had scratches on both sides. He also concluded that the meter was recording 50% slow due to 't phase return wire fixing screw having been loosened inside the meter and the brake magnet position having been displaced. This could, according to the Chief engineer, happen only if some human agency had meddled with the mechanism. The petitioner being aggrieved by the view taken by the Chief Engineer filed the present writ petition for a certiorari quashing the demand as also the appellate order.

(2.) MR. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a twofold submission at the bar. Firstly, it was argued that keeping in view the nature of the controversy, the respondents had no jurisdiction to determine and raise a demand on account of back-billing charges. He urged that any dispute as regards the correctness of a meter -could be resolved only by the Electrical inspector on a reference made to him under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The dispute in the instant case was, according to Mr. Jain, one relating to the correctness of the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner and could therefore have been agitated only before the Inspector concerned. Alternatively, he argued that the calculation of the back-billing charges was unsupported by any material hence arbitrary. He urged that the respondents had proceeded on the assumption that the unit had been working for 12 hours for all the 30 days of a month, which assumption, it was strenuously submitted, was wholly without any basis.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the necessity of a reference arose only where there was no human involvement in the erroneous recording of energy by the electrical meter. In cases of fraud and tampering of meters, Section 26 (6) had no application according to the respondents. Insofar as calculation of back-billing charges was concerned, it was fairly conceded that there was scope for modification depending upon the material, which the petitioner could produce to show that the unit did not work for 12 hours a day or that there were holidays during the month for which the demand was raised.