PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur through its Executive Officer, and Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board through its Executive Officer filed suit for declaration against (1) SDO Punjab State Electricity Board Civil Lines, Sub Division, Hoshiarpur; (2) Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Hoshiarpur; and (3) Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Chairman to the effect that bill No. 13836 dated 11.3.1994 amounting to Rs. 82,300/ - was illegal, null and void and the defendants have no right to recover the amount of that bill from them and for permanent injunction restraining them from recovering the amount of the said bill dated 11.3.1994 and further restraining them from disconnecting the electric connection No. MS -19. It was alleged in the plaint that Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur has electric connection No. MS -19. With the electric connection, is operated a tubewell, which is located at Bansi Nagar, Hoshiarpur. This tubewell is supplying drinking water to the public at large of that locality. It is a basic amenity which has to be extended to the inhabitants of that locality by the Municipal Committee. Average bill of electricity consumption on this tubewell was about Rs. 5000/ - per month. Bill for Rs. 82,300/ - was issued under wrong impression. It was highly excessive. Connection of the tubewell was initially obtained by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and after the installation of the tubewell, the tubewell was handed over to the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur was regularly paying electricity charges.

(2.) Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as "the PSEB") contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that electric connection No. MS -19 is in the name of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and a 3 CT meter was installed for running tubewell on 15.6.1992 and on checking connection to one of the CTs was found to be reversed thereby nullifying the action of the second CT meter. As a result, only one CT meter was contributing for recording of energy. Meter was recording 1/3rd reading. Inspection was done by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 5.10.1993 and this defect was detected and the connection of the meter was set right and, thereafter reading of the meter jumped to three times than all the previous readings. Account of the said meter was over -hauled from the date of the installation of the meter and the bill was rightly issued.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :