SOUTHERN BASIC CHEMICAL Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the first respondent dated 31.1.1997 in proceedings No.AE/D/R/SNKL/F-DKT/D-85/97, directing the petitioner that he should pay a sum of Rs.1,23,309/- by way of current consumption charges for the period from February 1993 to March 1996 on an average basis, which calculation was made on the footing that the meter was defective during the said period.

(2.) On the one hand, the petitioner would contend that initially when the first notice was issued on 23.4.1996 by the first respondent and pursuant to which several other correspondence came to be exchanged between the petitioner and the first respondent, at no point of time, the first respondent contended that the meter was defective on any date prior to April 1996 and therefore, without any notice to the petitioner, the present stand of the first respondent that the meter was defective right from February 1993 cannot be allowed to be made. It was then contended that in any event, whether any demand is sought to be made on the ground that the meter was defective, in the light of the provisions of the Electricity Act (Act 9 of 1910), the respondents were not competent to determine the liability or even attempt to disconnect the power supply on that footing.

(3.) The above stand of the petitioner is also supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in M.P.E.B. AND OTHERS vs. SMT. BASANTIBAI (AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 71), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph No.13:- "We are, however, unable to accept his contrary view as it is obvious from the provisions of S.26, sub-sec.(6) of the said Act that dispute whether a meter is correct or faulty would come under the said provisions and not the dispute regarding tampering of meter. In our view, the view taken about the scope of S.26(6) in the decisions cited above are correct. In the instant case the dispute relates to whether the meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil mill of the respondent. So this dispute squarely falls within the provisions of the said Act and as such it has been rightly found by the High Court that it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. The appellant No.1 is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The Board is also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy. For the reasons, aforesaid we affirm the order of High Court and dismiss the appeal without costs."