SHANTILAL R DESAI Vs. P N VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises the question of proper construction of Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act. 1910 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' the petitioner is the licensee within the meaning of the said Act as also the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948 and is the sole owner of the Bilimora Electricity Power Supply Company. The petitioner supplied c but receives electrical energy from the Gujarat Electrical Board and distributes it in the town of Bilimora. The petitioner supplied electricity energy of high-tension as well as low-tension. As regards the supply if high- tension power, the tariffs for payment of charges for the supply of energy have been fixed by the Gujarat Electrical Board and they are known as Grid Tariffs. There are two schedules of tariffs called TH/ HTP- 1 and TH/HTP-2. The Schedule HTP-2 applies in respect of supply of high-tension for the combined purpose of lighting and power services in cases where the consumption. Respondent for lighting purposes is 15 percent and above but does not exceed 50 percent of the total consumption. Respondent No. 1 is Electrical Inspector. Respondent No. 2 partnership is a consumer and under an agreement dated the 1st of may 1966 has been supplied high-tension power. The second respondent under the agreement has agreed to pay for the high-tension energy supplied, at rates as pre the Schedule HTP-1 and HTP-2 fixed by the Electrical Board from time to time. In respect of the high-tension power supplied to respondent No. 2, bills for demand of May, June and July 1966 were prepared and submitted to them in accordance with the rates contained in tariff HTP-1 as it was not noticed by the petitioner No. 2 was over 15 present of the total consumption. But thereafter having come to know about it, for the month of August bill dated 12th September 1966 was prepared bill the basis of Schedule HTP-2 and submitted to them it was not in accordance with the tariff. Petitioner sent back the bill intimating respondent No. 2 that it did not required any amendment as it was in accordance with the tariff. Petitioner also having noticed that even surfing the months of May, June and July respondent No. 2 had used energy for lighting purpose over 15 p. c. of the total energy consumed, sent revised bills for the three months on the basis of tariff HTP-2. Respondent No. 2 the 3rd of October 1966 on their own calculation sent with the letter, cheque for Rs. 1863.34 only for payment of the months of August 1966. In the said letter, they also mentioned that they were not prepared to pay even be difference in the amount claimed by the petitioner in respect of the months of May, June and July a according to them the said demand was not justified. On the 4th of October 1966 the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No. 2 forwarding a copy of the letter to respondent No. 1 that the bills submitted were correct and the cheque for the lesser amount due, in time necessary notice shall be served on them. In the application to respondent sent in an application to respondent No. 1 dated the 22nd of September 1966 purporting to submit the dispute to the first respondent. It was contended therein by the 2nd respondent that the bills served by the petitioner were in excess of the legal rates which the petitioner was entitle to charge. On the 4th October 1966 respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the c informing him that the bill for August 1966 sent to respondent No. 2 was likely to be disputed. In reply, the petitioner put the respondent No. 1 in possession of all the facts and thereafter on the 5th of October 1966 gave a notice to respondent No. 2 demanding the payment of the amount of the bill for August failing which his connection will be cut. On the 7th of October 1966, the petitioner received the notice dated 6th October 1966 from Respondent No. 1 which is the impugned notice in this petition, informing him that respondent No. 2 had raised a dispute for the energy bill for August 1966 and requesting the petitioner not to disconnect the electric supply of respondent No. 2 till he heard further from respondent No. 1. Suffice it to say that some c correspondence was carried on by three petitioner with respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 and petitioner with respondent No. 2 and petitioner was informed that respondent No. 2 had disposed in full the amount for the bill of August 1966. Thereafter on the 18th of October 1966 the petitioner informed respondent No. 1 that the bills for the months of May, June July were issued under a wrong impression and therefore fresh supplementary bills were submitted to respondent No. 2 for payment and no the same day a notice was given by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 to pay up the difference. Within three days failing which the supply will be cut off. On 7th November 1966, the petitioner raised a contention before respondent No. 1 by his letter that the pre-requisite Section 24 was that three must be difference or dispute required to be determined by the Electrical inspector and the and the dispute purporting to have been referenced to him by respondent No. 2 was not such a dispute. Even after this, some other correspondence ensued between them but we need not reefer to the details thereof.

(2.) The main contention raised for our consideration is whether the Electrical Inspector respondent No. 1 has jurisdiction or authority to entertain the difference or dispute that had arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. This contention directly takes us to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act. It will be convenient to reproduce Section 24:-

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Vakil further urged that case, sub-section (2) does not come into play at all it applies only in cases where the dispute is refereed to the Electrical Inspector which under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector. He contended that none of provisions of the Act nor the schedule to the Act makes a dispute in regard to the non-payment of dues fro Electrical energy supplied or a dispute between the licensee and the consumer as regards the basis on which Electrical charge shall be paid, referable to the Electrical Inspector. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the respondent No. 1 ordering him to desist from exercising his right under sub-section (1) is without jurisdiction. In order to emphasize this contention, he also pointed out that the words "which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector has been refereed to the Inspector" were substituted in sub-section (2) by an amendment in the year 1959 in place of the word "has been refereed under this Act to an Electrical Inspector". It was argued that the words "which by or under this Act is required to be determined by a "Electrical Inspector" make a positive provision of a mandatory nature and they must be given full effect to. Prima facie, this contention has a great force. Mr. B. R. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing fro respondent No. 1 is not able to point out to us any provision either in the main body of the Act or even the schedule which makes referable to the Electrical Inspector any difference or, dispute in respect of electricity energy supplied. It may be first noted that the Schedule in Clauses V (2) and VI (3) does makes referring disputes arising in respect of matters dealt with provisions as to laying down of further distributing mains and Clause VI lays down provisions for the requisition for supply to owners or occupiers in vicinity. It is definite therefore that the amendment introduced in sub-section (2) is not a futile or superfluous amendment made the purposes of referring disputes to the Electrical Inspector .