RAM ICE FACTORY Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the Bill dated 20.3.1991 by which a demand of Rs. 2,30,558.22 and for Rs. 17,140.76 for electricity duty has bee created. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the factory of the petitioner is a seasonal one and information was sent on 1.6.89 to the Executive Engineer that the factory shall remain closed w.e.f. 1.7.1989. This information was not received and by the communication dated 20.3.90 the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 44,827.65 upto March 31, 1990. The petitioner submitted a representation against this demand but instead or reducing the demand, another letter was issued creating the demand or Rs. 2,47,698.98. The said letter was issued on the basis that the body and terminal seals of the meters was found tampered. It was the basis of tampering with the seals that the bill for the period from April, 1986 to August, 1986, April 1987 to August, 1987 and March 26, 1988 to June, 1988 were raised. A suit in the civil court was filed in respect of the disconnection on 29.7.89 at which time that total dues were stated to the extent of Rs. 28,904.50. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reference under Section 27 of the Electricity Act has been made to the Electrical Inspector and a demand at the most for a period of six months could have been made. It is also submitted that in accordance with the General Conditions of Supply notified by the RSEB under clause 19 it has been provided that the accuracy of the amount of energy supplied to a consumer shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter which may be hired from the Board or purchased by the consumer at the latter's option, is type of the meter shall be subject to the approval of the Board. Where the meter is hired from the Board, the Board shall keep the meter correct and in default of its doing so the consumer shall for so long as the default continues cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter. It is submitted that since the liability was of the Board to keep the meter correct, therefore, the provisions of rule 19 have not been complied with and the petitioner cannot be made liable. It is also submitted that the notice has been issued after five years and the to without providing opportunity and as such it is against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has come late. It is observed that the respondents or their advocates are expected to be present at the time when the case is called and not at their sweet-will. The contention of the counsel for the respondents that there are 10 courts and therefore it is not possible to be present when the case is called is not acceptable. The respondents or their counsel should make their own arrangements so that the court must know that the case is being represented by an advocate. They cannot come at their option whenever they like.

(3.) AT the time of checking by Vigilance Squad of the RSEB on 7.6.87 it was found in the presence of the petitioner that all the meters were not working and consumption load of 47 KW was not being recorded. The disk of meter Nos. 2 and 3 was rotating but the readings were not increasing. The body of the terminal seal of the three single phase meters provided was lying tampered. The said report was signed by the representative of the petitioner. Another spot checking was done by the AEN (ST) on 10.6.68 and it was found that the body seal of the meters was tampered with. It may be observed that the limitation as aforesaid for the reasons discussed above is of 6 years, but the respondent was completely negligent after checking/inspection of the factory of the petitioner on 7.6.87 and 10.6.88 and the revised bill was prepared on 20.3.91. This shows how the efficiency the respondents are observing in dealing with such type of cease where one after another seal is broken. The Chairman shall conduct as enquiry against the officer who was responsible in not taking timely action and disciplinary action against the said officer, and compliance report shall be submitted to this court within three months and a separate file shall be opened for that purpose.