JAIRNANGAL LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dt/-19-9-1987 (Annexure-1) passed by the Advisory Board, respondent No. 2, allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by the Patna Electricity Supply Undertaking, respondent No. 7 and condoning the delay of three and half months in filing an appeal against the order of the Electrical Inspector passed under S.36(2) of the Electricity Act read with R.6(3) of the Electricity Rules. The main ground on which the order of the Advisory Board has been assailed is that the Board had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in the absence of any statutory provision conferring such a power. According to the petitioners, the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly, S.5 thereof, also do not apply to the instant proceeding since the Advisory Board is not a "court."

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. Petitioner No. 1 owns and runs a hotel and is a body corporate registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, respondent No. 7 herein is a unit of the Bihar State Electricity Board and a licensee under the Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as PESU) started supply of electrical energy to petitioner No. 1 from 11-2-1982. The supply of electrical energy began when the hotel building of petitioner No. 1 was under construction. The Patna Electric Supply Undertaking fixed its own meter for measuring the quantity of electricity supplied to petitioner No. 1. The hotel started functioning in Aug. 1983 and electricity charges were being paid regularly according to the consumption recorded in the electrical meter. On 7-4-1986, the petitioners received electric bill for the months of Feb. and March 1986 for an amount of Rs. 37.60 p. only. Since the amount claimed in the bill was very low, the petitioners immediately by letter dt/-11-4-1986 informed the Electrical Executive Engineer, Central Division, PESU bringing this fact to his notice and requesting him for getting the meter checked up since it was recording a low reading. Thereafter, on 30th June, 1986 PESU sent a bill to the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 1,49,078.74p. for the period Feb. 1985 to June, 1986 i.e. for seventeen months. According to the petitioners, such a huge demand was highly arbitrary and illegal since there was no allegation of any tampering with the meter. Moreover, such a bill could not be raised by PESU arbitrarily and in view of the meter being defective, the matter had necessarily to be referred to the Electrical Inspector under S.26(6) of the Act. The petitioners disputed the amount claimed in the bill and the dispute was ultimately decided by the Electrical Inspector by his order dt/29-11-1986 in exercise of jurisdiction under S.26(6) of the Act. The Electrical inspector found that the meter was properly recording the consumption up to 14th Feb. 1986 and consequently the petitioners were not liable to pay any amount prior to 14-2-1986. For the subsequent period, the Electrical Inspector having regard to the consumption of electrical engery in the past six months calculated that the average consumption of the petitioners was Rs. 7,424.67p. per month. He, therefore, directed the petitioners to deposit the charges for electrical engery consumed at the rate of Rs. 7,424.67p. per month till the meter was duly checked. The PESU was restrained from realising the amount contained in the bill dt/-30th June, 1986 amounting to Rs. 1,49,078.74p.

(3.) Under S.36(2) of the Act, there is a provision for appeal from the order of the Electrical Inspector to the State Government or to the Advisory Board if the Government by general or special order so directs. The Government of Bihar has issued a notification on 23-5-1984 constituting an Advisory Board. Under R.6(3) of the Electricity Rules, such an appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of the order of the Electrical Inspector. It is not in dispute that neither under the Act nor under the Rules is there any specific provision conferring upon the State Government or the Advisory Board the power to extend time or to condone delay in preferring an appeal under R.6(3) of the Rules.