MOHTA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8th May, 1985, a meter called a trivector meter was installed in the premises of the petitioner-company, which is a large scale consumer of electricity. A trivector meter as its very name suggests consists of three meters, a KWH meter which records the actual consumption of electricity, another called M.D.I., which indicates the maximum demand and the third meter is called a KVAH meter which determines the power factor. It is the conceded case of the parties that as per Section 52 of the Electricity Supplies Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), power factor has to be maintained at 85 and above with permissible variations. It is nevertheless the conceded case that if these readings are not mentioned, no financial benefit accrues to the consumer, but it only affects the over-all working of the transmission system of electricity. On 21st October, 1987, the Mobile Meter Testing Squad of the respondent-Board, visited the premises of the petitioner and tested the meter and found that KVAH meter was running slow by 16.59%. On 6th November, 1987, a bill was accordingly, sent levying a power factor surcharge amounting of Rs. 3,01,247.48. The petitioner failed various suits praying that till such time, the Chief Electrical Inspector (CEI) decided the matter under section 26(6) of the Act, the bills could not be raised by the Board. The trial Court vide its order dated 22nd February, 1989 Annexure P-1 to the petition, granted to a conditional injunction stipulating that a bank guarantee be provided by the petitioner for the amounts claimed from it. Twenty two appeals were taken to the Addl. District Judge concerned, 11 by the petitioner and the others by the respondent-Board on 16.9.1989, the appellate Court directed that an order for a bank guarantee could not be justified and that the amounts of the bills be paid. This order was challenged in this Court and on 25th January, 1990, a direction was issued by the Court that as the CEI was now seized of the matter, he should calculate the amounts due from the petitioner in terms of the rules and regulations. The CEI accordingly, on 19.2.1990 visited the premises of the petitioner and after putting his own check meter, came to the conclusion that the KVAH meter was, in fact, running slow by 14%. He accordingly directed the respondent-Board to replace the meter as well. The C.E.I. also submitted his report Annexure P4 to the petition on 7.5.1990 and the matter was once again brought before the High Court. On 22.5.1990 the High Court directed that the Board should replace the meter in question and the same was in fact replaced on 16.6.1990. The C.E.I. in the course of his report determined the amount due from the petitioner at Rs. 16,26,308/- and this amount was deposited by the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as directed by the High Court. As per the liberty given by the High Court, objections were filed against Annexure P4 i.e. the report of the C.E.I. and the same were disposed off by the order impugned in the present proceedings. The trial Court vide its order dated 25.10.1991 recorded a finding that the case of the petitioner fell under clauses 14(c) and (f) of the Abridged Conditions of supply but if the contention of the petitioner was to be accepted that the matter fell under clause 14(j), thereof nothing would be due from them. The Court also held that the report of the C.E.I. in so far as it determined that the KVAH meter was running slow (-14%) was in order, but the actual calculations made were contrary to the instructions on the subject and the C.E.I., had in fact, given undue benefit to the petitioner. The Court accordingly, held that the Board was entitled to claim compensation from the consumer taking the error of the meter at (-14%) and then to calculate the power factor accordingly and to issue a supplementary bill for the period from April, 1987 to June, 1990. Aggrieved, thereby, the petitioners have come up to this Court.

(2.) The primary argument of Mr. Sibal, counsel for he petitioner has been that the learned Sub Judge had given a positive finding that the matter under dispute fell within clause 14(e) and (f) of the Abridged Condition of supply and the petitions were, therefore, liable but if the petitioner's claim fell under Clause 14(j) of the Conditions of Supply, nothing was due and that from bare reading of Clause 14(j), it was evident that as far as the KVAH meter was concerned the dispute could be dealt with only under that provision and not under Clause 14(e) or (f). He also urged that under Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910, it was the duty of the Board to refer any dispute that may arise between the parties to the decision of the C.E.I. and as the meter issued by the Board to the petitioner did not indicate any variation in the power factor it was for the Board to raise such a dispute. In support of his assertions, Mr. Sibal has placed reliance on J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1961 AIR(SC) 1170, M/s. Regal Theatre and others v. M.P.E.B. Rampur and others,1987 AIR(PM) 276 and M.P.E.B. and others v. Smt. Basantibai, 1988 AIR(SC) 71

(3.) As against this, Mr. Goel, counsel for respondent-Board has urged that the trial Court was entirely right in recording that the case of the petitioner fell under Clause 14(e) and (f) of the Conditions of Supply and as clause 14(j) would apply (as has been held by the trial Court) only in case where the meter was dead and not operating at all and not where the meter was operating though defectively. He has urged that as the correctness of the meter was disputed by the Board but by the petitioner, it was for the petitioner to have gone to the C.E.I. in order to raise a dispute and file an application before him.