MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NANDED Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges bill dated 21. 12. 1984 issued by the respondent no. 1 demanding sum of Rs. 16,46,977. 12 being the amount of difference between relation consumption charges actually paid and the amount stated to be payable by the petitioner for the period from June, 1982 to August, 1984, being illegal and unwarranted.

(2.) THE petitioner is engaged in providing various amenities to the citizens within the area of its jurisdiction which include supply of electricity as well as water supply. THE respondent no. 1 is an agency which supplies the electrical energy to all the areas under its jurisdiction. THE petitioner is consumer of high tension electric energy supplied by the respondent no. 1. Since 1974 the petitioner has been provided with electricity supply by the respondent no. 1 for functioning of new water works at Nanded. THE energy so supplied is measured by meters provided by the respondent no. 1 and monthly bills issued in respect of consumption charges are paid by the petitioner to the respondent no. 1. In October, 1984 the petitioner received a bill in relation to the month of September, 1984 amounting to Rs. 1,23,526. 38 ps. as against the usual consumption charges of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month, consequent to which the petitioner approached the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 20. 10. 1984 requesting the respondents to look into the matter as the bill for month of September, 1984 was found to be abnormally high. In reply, it was informed to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer of respondent no. 1 by a letter dated 6. 11. 1984 that C. T. P. T. unit which was installed at the pumping station of the petitioner was found to be faulty and after the said fault was discovered, proper billing was done and consequently the said bill was issued. It was further informed to the petitioner that the bills prior to May, 1982 were almost equal to the bill which was issued for the month of September, 1984 and that due to the fault in said C. T. P. T. unit during the said period of June, 1982 to August, 1984, low consumption was indicated by the meter and therefore after applying the proper multiplier factor, the appropriate bill was issued for the month of September, 1984.

(3.) BARE perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 disclose that there was neither any dispute raised nor any grievance made by or on behalf of the respondent no. 1, at any point of time, that the meter by which the consumption of the electric supply to the petitioner was measured was either malfunctioning or that it was not correctly recording the supply during the period from May, 1982 till September, 1984. There was no defect detected any time in the meter supplied to the petitioner by the respondent for measuring the electric supply to the petitioner by the respondent. On the contrary, if at all there was any defect, it was in the unit under full control of the respondent no. 1 themselves. The affidavit in reply filed by M. Satter Shareef Superintending Engineer of the respondent no. 1 clearly reads as under:- ?The said low consumption which was on account of faulty connection of CTPT units, remained to be detected and the low consumption recorded by the meter was also not noticed until the said transformers again developed some fault and were replaced. After the reconnection in November-84, it was noticed by the Executive Engineer [Testing] Shri. K. R. Kulkarni of the first Respondent that the CTPT connections during May-82 to August-84 were faulty and the said fault resulted in the meter recording only 1/3rd of the actual consumption of the electrical energy supplied by the first Respondent to the water works of the petitioner. ? The affidavit nowhere discloses what is the usual procedure followed by the respondent no. 1 for testing such units. Undisputedly there is different section maintained by the respondent no. 1 as the affidavit itself discloses that the respondent no. 1 avails the facility of having Executive Engineer [Testing] for the purpose of testing of such units. If the units remain without being tested, and the unit is allowed to function without fault being repaired by the respondent no. 1, it only discloses lack of regular maintenance and supervision by the respondent no. 1. Certainly for the fault or lapse on the part of the respondent no. 1, the petitioners cannot be penalised. Viewed from this angle, the petitioners are certainly justified in making grievance about the demand by bill issued to them in September, 1984 being unwarranted.