LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.Bhaya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is one of the consumers of Gujarat Electricity Board. In the year 1995 as per the information of the Gujarat Electricity Board there was malfunctioning of the meter and, therefore, the letter dated 3-8-1995 was issued together with the bill for two months namely, for April, 1995 and May, 1995. The petitioner paid up the said bill. However, it is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1997 on account of some audit objection as to why the bill was not issued for six months which is the maximum period , another supplementary bill dated 8-7-1997 came to be issued for recovering the amount on the basis of the very malfunctioning of the matter for the period from 16-12-1994 to 6-6-1995. The petitioner made representation to the Board and it is also the case of the petitioner that the General Manager (Commercial) had entered into the correspondence with the Addl. Chief Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board that when the audit objection came to be raised the matter could have been properly explained and there are various correspondence showing that the petitioner did not accept the bill for six months, whereas the respondent Board insisted for the bill. Ultimately, on 13-5-2003 the respondent Board issued notice for recovery of the aforesaid amount of the disputed bill with the threat of disconnection and, therefore, under these circumstances the present petition is preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. It appears that there is no dispute on the point that there is no reference made under Section 26(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") to the Electrical Inspector. However, as per the Board initially such malfunctioning attracted bill for two months, whereas subsequently the stand of the Board is that it should have been for six months which is the maximum period. The case of the petitioner is that when the bill for two months was issued it was compared with the card and record of the Board and thereafter the bill for two months was issued and, therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that six months is the maximum period and it is not necessary that whenever there is a malfunctioning of the meter the bill is required to be issued for six months and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of "Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. etc. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Another etc." reported in AIR 1997 SC, 2793.