PUSHYA INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner here challenges the order and proceedings dated 19.8.1995 as also the order dated 2.3.1994. It seems that the order dated 19.8.1995 has been passed in pursuance of the order dated 2.3.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). In the order dated 2.3.1994 also, the Board dealt with the representations dated 9.11.1993 and 9.2.1994. These representations seemingly were against the order passed dated 24.9.1993 bearing No. Lr.No.SED/DFC/HP/A.2/F.SC.76/93-141.

(2.) There is a short history to this ispute: Admittedly, the petitioner is a consumer and uses electricity for its factory. It pleaded that on 19.2.1992, the officials of the department checked the Trivector meter and recalibrated the same. However, after such recalibration, the meter started showing enormous increase on the very next day. Therefore, that was pointed out to the Board and on 11.3.1992, a challenge test was conducted and it came to light that the recalibrated meter was not proper and therefore, on 17.3.1992, the meter was changed. On 7.5.1992, the petitioner presumably wrote a letter to the 1st respondent that the petitioner was overcharged during the period 19.2.1992 to 17.3.1992 and therefore, sought a refund of approximately Rs.28,000/-. The Board was requested to deduct this amount in the subsequent bills by adjusting the same. No reply was issued to this letter.

(3.) However, by a letter dated 24.9.1993, to which a reference has already been made by me in the earlier part of the judgment, the petitioner was informed that there was no proper charging by the meter and therefore, the reading of the energy was not properly recorded and therefore, the Board by taking recourse to the earlier readings during the months of October, November and December, 1991 and January, 1992, had drawn the average power consumed and on that account, it was clear that there was a short payment of Rs.1,00,138/-. Now, the period concerned in this letter had nothing to do with recalibration or the subsequent changing of the meter and it was connected to the prior period. Therefore, we are not concerned with the subsequent events here.