SUBODH KUMAR PODDAR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions arise for consideration in this case. One is whether it is open to the Board to increase the number of units by hundred per cent, for the purpose of billing on monthly average basis, on the failure of a domestic consumer to purchase a meter at his own cost, for replacing the previous defective one? It is undeniable that the responsibility for installing a meter to record the consumption of energy lies with the Board. But during the passeveral years, owing to financial stringencies and mis -management, the Board has not been in a position to maintain a ready supply of meters for replacement of defective ones. A practice has, therefore, developed for the consumer to purchase a meter which is installed after its functioning is tested and approved by the officials of the Board. In such cases the Board does not charge the meter rent. In this case the petitioner did not purchase a meter at his own cost, even though advised by the Board. As a consequence, the concerned officials doubled the number of units for the purpose of average monthly billings. Mr. R. K. Dutta, Addl. S.C. representing the Board was unable to point out any provision in the tariff which might have sanctioned such an action by the Board.

(2.) THE other question is whether it is permissible for the Board to levy delayed payment surcharge (D.P.S.) once it is admittedly found that the earlier bills given over a period of several years were raised incorrectly and then correct bills are made for the period in question. This question is concluded, against the Board, by a decision of this court in M/s. Gaya Roller Flour Mills V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 1995 (2) PLJR 715 and another order, passed by this court recently on 11.7.2002 in CWJC No. 3605 of 2002 (Manwendra Narain Agrawal V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and others).

(3.) THE petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity. The meter installed at his residence became defective in the year, 1986 when it was found that its outer glass cover was broken and it was not functioning properly. Though in the course of arguments in this case, it was suggested that it might be the handi -work of the petitioner himelf, at that time no accusation of this kind was made and no action was taken against the petitioner for the meter becoming defective.