W B S E B Vs. MOZAMMEL HOQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) both sides are present through their learned Advocates. The petition for condonation of delay is taken up for hearing. Heard arguments of both. The learned Advocate Mr. Das for the respondent opposes the prayer for condonation of delay. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the delay of 67 days in all has been properly explained in his petition. Perused the petition. It appears that the time consumed was taken by different departments of the appellant, W. B. S. E. B. and the formalities to be observed by them, for example, in sending the file from the local supply office to the divisional office and therefrom to corporate legal and therefrom to the legal advisor and back to the corporate legal and thereafter to the Advocate concerned who was to draft the memo of appeal and get it approved and file it before the Court. Having relied on the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in its decision reported in A. I. R.1987 S. C.1353, we are inclined to take a liberal view in this matter and we hold that the explanation is satisfactory. Accordingly the delay of 67 days is to be condoned. Now regarding the admissibility of the appeal. Perused the impugned judgment. Heard learned Advocates. Considered. Let the appeal be admitted and registered. Since the respondent is already present no further notice need be served. At the instance of both sides the case is also taken up for hearing on merits today.

(2.) Heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and also perused the impugned order and the memo of appeal. The matter essentially relates to billing dispute arising out of allegedly defective meter and preparation of monthly bills on average basis by the W. B. S. E. B. The period for which the bills raised by the appellant have been challenged is from 12/97 to 2/98, 4/98 to 5/98 and 1/99 to 12/99. During this period, according to the complainant W. B. S. E. B. raised bills on average basis which were excessive according to the complainant. The total amount of the bills for the disputed period is Rs.23,899/- and this amount was not being paid by the complainant. However, according to the learned Advocate for the complainant, other than the disputes bills as stated above all other bills have been paid. It is also gathered that the line has not been disconnected.

(3.) This is clearly a case of billing dispute arising out of defective meters. As per settled principle the disputed bills along with the defective meters are required to be referred to the C. E. I. for proper adjudication that is, for ascertaining the defective nature of the disputed meters and for assessment of the consumption of electricity during the disputed period. For ends of justice the complainant should pay 50% of the total claim before the matter is referred to C. E. I. , though the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the total claim amount should be paid. Accordingly we deem it appropriate to pass the following order.