VINOYAK SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Tushar for the respondent waives service of Rule. At the request of the learned Advocate this matter is taken up for final hearing today. The electricity meter installed at the petitioner's factory was running slow. He was given a supplementary bill of Rs. 94,675.67 p. It was on the basis that the meter was running slow by 65.67% At the instance of the petitioner the meter was sent for laboratory checking to the Electrical Inspector and there, it was found that the meter was running slowly 43.48 per cent and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 54,420.61 p. The petitioner paid that amount on 11-5-1993. Thereafter the petitioner was issued another supplementary bill for the balance of the amount and by a letter at Annexure, the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance of Rs. 37,375.53 p. The Deputy Engineer, Distribution Division- 1 of the respondent herein called upon the petitioner to pay that amount stating that the Circle Office, Mehsana had rejected the case of the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent has contended that though the laboratory testing had shown slow running of the meter at 53.48 per cent only, the testing of the meter at the site, it had shown the reading of slow running by 65.67 per cent. It is contended that the meter readings and testings may differ on account of several para meters. It is submitted by way of an illustration that there may be a defective wiring at the site of the installation of the meter or there may be voltage fluctuation, the very distance between the sub-section, the point of supply and because of the situation of wiring sometimes the wires might have been carbonised and such other factors may influence recording of units in the meter. He further submitted that in the laboratory testing the para meters might be different and therefore, the laboratory testing and other testing may differ. These are general and vague situations and para meters. It is not found that any of these para meters were applicable. If on account of such vague considerations, the laboratory testing is to be rejected, the laboratory testing of the Electrical Inspector would be wholly unnecessary. Moreover, the petitioner was never told about the laboratory report in his favour and more particularly the consideration by the Suptdg. Engineer for taking a different view from the view of the Electrical Inspector. This is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) For rejecting the laboratory report there should be applicable and proved circumstances and para meters and opportunity should be given to the consumer to show as to why the findings of the laboratory report are to be rejected. Nothing of the sort has been done by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent's insistence on the recovery of the additional amount is clearly illegal and erroneous.