REGENT THEATRE Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner seeks quashing of the supplementary bill dated 23.11.1994 for Rs. 62,554.90 and subsequent bills raised enhancing the reading recorded on the meter installed by the respondents at the premises of the petitioner. However, Mr. S.S. Rekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the challenge to any subsequent bills are concerned although they may be based on the meter reading, he is not challenging the same and not pressing the relief sought to that extent.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Cinema Hall and a consumer of electricity having received an electrical connection from the respondent-Board bearing A/c No. 1462 CS-III, Route No. 15-22101800. The electrical meter was installed by the respondent-Board in the premises of the petitioner and bills raised from time to time were paid by the petitioner till 24.10.1994. On 24.10.1994 an inspection was made by the functionaries of the respondent-Board who did not record any finding of tampering with the meter but observed that during the testing one P.T. has been found open due to short circuit in the C.T. Box. After that the C.T. Box was opened and tested all the three CTs. and found O.K. but one P.T. connection has been found burnt out which burnt wire was repaired and after repairing of burnt wire the function of all three CTs. was found O.K. It is not in dispute that on the inspecting team coming to the conclusion that the meter was running slow by 29.45%, they had not referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector, rather on their own the respondents raised a bill dated 23.11.1994 for Rs. 62,554.90 for six months as assessment of units short billed due to incorrectness of meter. The testing of the respondents was disputed by the petitioner by its letters dated 16.12.1994 and 12.12.1994. Apprehending disconnection on account of non-payment of bill, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ application. This Court while admitting the writ application for hearing directed that if the petitioner tenders the amount payable to the Board minus the amount claimed in the bill in question and the authorities of the Board do not accept payment, they will not be entitled to claim delayed payment surcharge or interest thereof.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which was applicable at the relevant time where any difference or dispute arises with respect to a meter not being correct, it could only have been decided upon an application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector and only such Inspector has the authority to estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of the Inspector has been correct but except on such finding of the Electrical Inspector, the register of the meter is to be conclusive proof of the amount or quantity of electricity supplied to a consumer in the absence of fraud. It is thus, submitted by learned counsel that admittedly the respondent-Board having acted unilaterally in the matter and raised the bills treating the meter as defective and not correctly recording, such bill is contrary to the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and is fit to be quashed.