MATADIN ISHWARI YADAV Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to certain electricity bills issued by the first respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioner is a resident of Talasari District - Thane. He is the consumer of electricity supplied by the first Respondent and uses the electricity for various purposes including agriculture. He receives the electricity supplied by means of six different connections as set out in para 3 of the petition.

(2.) THE first respondent issued a letter dated 21st December 1985 to the petitioner recording inter alia that these auditors of the Head Office, Bombay had audited the accounts of Talasari Sub-Division of the first respondent and as per the said report, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs.2,579.87 ps. on account of differential charges. Along with the said letter, a copy of the report was also forwarded to the petitioner. the said report, it was inter alia stated that from the initial stage, the meter supplied to the petitioner in respect of the electricity connection bearing Consumer No.C-186 was appeared to be faulty, and, on the Meter Card, the same was marked as faulty, and, therefore, from August, 1980 onwards, the minimum consumption was taken for billing. It was further stated that on 17th June, 1981, the said meter was replaced, but even the newly installed meter was found to be faulty and the billing on minimum consumption basis was done till June, 1984. In the report, it was further stated that from quarter ending September, 1984, an average of 50 units per quarter was assessed. However, the Accounts Officer of the Head Office discussed the said matter with Sub-Engineer and as agreed by the Sub-Engineer, the consumption, normally expected for per quarter, was 200 units, and, therefore, from August, 1980 to June, 1980, the charges were assessed on the basis of 200 units per quarter and the amount of Rs.2,416/- was worked out. For the period from September, 1984 to March, 1985, it was alleged that there was under billing to the extent of 450 units, and, therefore, for the said period, a further amount of Rs.355.87ps. was due. Thus, as per the said report, the total recovery was worked out to Rs.2,579.87ps.

(3.) THE petitioner by his various replies contested the Board's right to recover the additional amounts mainly on the ground that the Board has no right to recover the charges beyond the period of six months. The petitioner alleged that if the meter was defective, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and, in case, if the Electrical Inspector comes to the conclusion that the meter was defective, the revised demand could not be made for electric charges for the period beyond six months immediately preceding reference. Various other contentions were raised by the petitioner in his reply but it is not necessary of us to deal with them as the same were not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing. The first respondent Board, however, refused to pay any heed to the objections raised by the petitioner and straightaway disconnected all the electricity connections granted to the Petitioner. This action of the Board is led to filing of the present writ petition.