BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application prayer is for quashing the order dated 13 -9 -1990 passed by the Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar, Patna in Electric Dispute 13/90 in exercise of the power under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') whereby he has held that the respondent No. 2, M/s. Bihar Hotels Ltd. is not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3, 18,039.61 paise as was demanded by the petitioners vide its Supplementary bill dated 17 -6 -1989.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner Board is Licensee and the respondent No. 2 is consumer. The case of the petitioner is that a meter No. 104122 was installed by them in the premises of the Responded No. 2 to record the consumption of electricity and raising bills. In September 1986, in course of inspection the M.R.T. Division of the Board was found that the meter in question was shown as compared to the Standard Check Meter and accordingly, it is claimed that a report was prepared on the basis of a Test conducted from 25 -9 -1986 to 29 -9 -1986 showing that the meter in question was 2,3% slow in K.W.H., 17.21% slow in K.V.A.H. and 10.23% slow in K.V.A. Acopy of the said report has been annexed as Annexure -1. Against in between the period 23 -2 -1989 to 27 -2 -1989 the said meter was tested with the help of a Standard Test Meter as a result of which it was found that the said meter was slow by 5.04% in K.W.H. 50.94% in K.V.A.H. and 20.75% in K.V.A. As a result of the above mentiond inspection reports the petitioners sent a Supplementary bill for Re. 3,18,039.61 paise to the respondent No. 2 with forwarding letter, dated 27 -6 -1989 mentioning the results of the two reports on the basis of which the Supplementary bill was prepared.

(3.) The Respondent No. 2 in reply wrote a letter to the petitioners on 21 -7 -1989, contained in Annexure -5, disputing the correctness of the claim of the petitioners that the meter was not correctly recording and alternatively that even if it is accepted that the meter was not correct the petitioners are not authoriesed to serve them with a bill for a period of more than six months. Respondent No. 2 also asserted that there was no testing of meter in September 1986 and the test report of February 1989 is also not correct. It was also stated that despite the demand made by them they were not shown any certificate to assure them that the meter installed to check the existing meter was correct. Besides, on account of the short -fall in the power factor also, the Respondent No. 2 stated that the said test report is incorrect. The Respondent No. 2 also expressed strange that despite own assertion of the petitioners that the meter was wrong since September 1986, they did not take any step to replace the meter with a correct one. Accordingly, they requested the petitioners to withdraw the said supplementary bill, stop further buildings for the current months on the basis of the test report of February 1989, replace the defective meter immediately with a correct one and refund the excess amount charged on the basis of the test report. When the grievance of Respondent No. 2 was not redressed, they filed C.W.J.C. No. 7092 of 1989 in this Court which finally disposed of vide order dated 8 -12 -1989, contained in Annexure -6, with a direction that they should file an application under Section 26 (6) of the Act before the Electrical Inspector, Patna within two weeks and, if any such application is filed, the Electrical Inspector, after hearing the petitioners and the respondent, Board shall consider the grievance made on behalf of the writ petitioner in respect of the supplementary bill in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P.B.B. and Ors. v. Basanti Bai and pass any appropriate order preferably within four months. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 filed an application raising dispute before the Electrical Inspector, Bihar, Patna which has been disposed of by the impugned order.