HIMSON KNITTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred challenging the additional bills issued for the period from October, 1995 to April, 1996 and subsequent communications dated 21. 08. 1996 and 06. 09. 1996 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,54,685. 49 ps.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner, a limited Company, is carrying on manufacturing activities at Surat. The petitioner entered into a contract demand for supply of power of 250 KVA by obtaining a high tension connection for the manufacturing unit. There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner has been otherwise paying the bills raised by the respondent authority regularly and without any default. The controversy arises on the basis of a visit by the checking squad on 15. 3. 1996, when the checking squad found that the meter installed at the factory premises was not running at the speed at which it should run considering the power supplied. In the remarks column the checking squad recorded as under : 15. Remarks: From the voltages measured as above it is confirm that one P. T. voltages is not coming to TTB and Meter. Due to this the Meter is moving slow by 47. 51% as celculted above. The bill for above slowness to be issued as per Boards Rules". Admittedly, thereafter on 18. 04. 1996 the defective CTPT (Current Transformer Potential Transformer) was replaced as recorded in the test sheet of even date. Thereafter, admittedly the supplemental bills were issued by the respondent authority.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the supplemental bills primarily on the ground that the CTPT unit is an instrument installed by the respondent authority and belongs to the respondent authority. That it is the obligation of the respondent authority to maintain the same in a proper working condition and if the instrument is found to be defective the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same by calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum specified in the additional bills. It was further submitted that under Provisions of section 26 (1) and 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 meter is installed by the respondent authority, the meter belongs to the respondent authority and if the meter is found to be defective and any difference or dispute arises the matter is required to be referred to Electrical Inspector. That the respondent authority having failed to do so cannot be permitted to raise the supplemental bills. It was further submitted that even otherwise as provided by sub-section 26 (6) of the Act the supplemental bills cannot exceed a period of six months and in the present case the petitioner has been billed for the entire months of October,1995 and April, 1996, thus resulting in a larger period for which the supplemental bills are issued. In support of the submissions made, reliance has been placed on Apex Court decision in the case of Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking Vs. Laffans (I) Pvt. Ltd. ,air 2005 SC 2486 to submit that whether the meter is correct or not is an issue which is required to be decided only by the Electrical Inspector and none else. That if such necessary exercise is not carried out the petitioner cannot be saddled with additional liability.