JEEWAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashment or the additional bills/ Supplementary bills (Ex. P. 2, P. 5, P. 6, P. 7, P. 21, P. 22) and compensation of Rs. 3 lacs has been prayed.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner is manufacturer of Vulcanized Rubber products and has taken electricity connection from MPEB. MPEB authorities used to visit the industry at various occasions and check the meter and the seal. On 19. 1. 1993 it was found that meter seal was okay. TTB (Test Terminal Block, was okay. Meter was found working on 'y' phase on the reverse side. Keversal working of the meter was not attributable to the petitioner. It was found on installing the meter that main meter was 27% slow. An additional bill amounting to Rs. 38,239/for the period February, 1992 to February, 1993 was raised. Asstt. Engineer (Vigilance) again checked the meter on 25. 6. 93. Meter box seal was found okay, body seal was okay. Meter was running reverse on "y' phase. The connected load at the premises was assessed to 132. 7 HP as against the sanctioned load of 100 HP. Additional bill of Rs. 90,048/- was raised which was protested by the petitioner. On protest the bill was revised to Rs. 18,642/ -. Petitioner paid the said amount. On 30. 8. 94 the premises was again checked by Asstt. Engineer (NSC) of city Division (East) and Asstt. Engineer (STM) of city Division (East), bhopal. Meter box seal was found okay. TTB (Test terminal block) seal was found okay. They alleged the stoppage of 'y' phase and improper working of phases 'r' and 'b'. Load was found to be 113 HP. Check meter was provided for about 11 days. The authorities calculated the consumption on pro-rata basis of 9000 units per month and bill of Rs. 30,491/- was raised. The defect was not the creation of the petitioner nor it could be attributed to him, the running of a particular phase on the reverse side was the defect of the meter falling within the parameter Under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. Matter was, thus, required to be referred to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act. No demand could be raised before decision by the Electrical Inspector. After one year, bill (Ex. P. 1) for a sum or Rs. 8,17,004/- was raised. It was illegal demand. Details were not given. Prayer was made to reconsider the matter. On 19. 1. 95 on inspection the meter was found okay as per report (Ex. P. 14 ). On 25. 8. 93 meter was found to be okay, however, additional demand was raised. After raising the demand of Rs. 8,17,004/- supply was disconnected. Later on, on 13. 10. 95 the respondents reduced the demand from Rs. 8,17,004/- to Rs. 1,99/203/- as per letter and bill [ex. P. 22 (1) to P. 22 (4)]. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid demand by way of incorporating the amendment on the aforesaid grounds. Petitioner made the payment under the protest. There was no reason to believe that consumer (sic) contravening any of the provisions of the Electricity Act. The Board has added one condition 31 (g) for High Tension Consumers which the petitioner is not which provides only Co the High Tension Consumers who. dishonestly abstracts, uses, consumes or maliciously causes any energy to be wasted or diverted. No such ground was available against the petitioner. board is liable to compensate the petitioner as his rubber compound worth Rs. 2 lacs has become scorched and wasted. Reliance has also been placed on decision of this Court reported in 1981 MPLJ Note 41.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents it is contended that there are various ways and means to interpolate the meter. in the event or reversal 2/3rd of the supply is not recorded. It was a case of an act done by the petitioner or he would have got it done through some agency. Therefore, check meter was installed in parallel to the main meter, it was found that 27% of the consumption was less. Meter was then set right. On 25. 8. 93 re-check was made and it was found to have been working reversed and the connected load was found to be 132. 7 HP as against the contracted load of 100 HP. Consumer had no right to enhance load, hence, was liable to pay penal charges. Therefore, the Board made a demand of Rs. 90,046/- as per calculation reports (R. 2 and R. 3 ). Reverse running of 'y' phase was not due to defect in meter. It is submitted that it is the consumer who had after the same being reset interfered with the meter and made it reversed because it was the consumer who were to be benefited resulting in 2/3rd supply being not recorded. On third checking 'y' phase found having stopped and 'r' and 'b' phase were not properly working phases were not properly working. Petitioner had again interfered with the meter and effected the working of all the phases. It was not due to the defect in meter. Again load was found enhanced as 113 HP instead of the contracted load of 100 HP, thus, petitioner became liable to pay penal charges. Mechanically it was not possible to reverse the meter. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act has no such application in the facts of the case nor Electrical Inspector has jurisdiction to decide it.