A.A. Mohd. Raffi vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and 2 others

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken-up for disposal.

The writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.1,31,693 towards the revised bill for service connection No.SC 56, Santhi Nagar Distribution to the defective meter for the period from April,

1994 to December, 1994.

The case of the petitioner is briefly stated herein. According to him, he is running a cattle and poultry feeds manufacturing industry and has been

provided with Service Connection SC No. 56 by the respondents. During the relevant period, the petitioner had been pointing out about the fall in

consumption and the petitioner had already explained by various communications, including the communication dated 10.2.1995. The petitioner

pointed out that he was running a poultry farm with a connected load of 6640 watts and that the power was not utilised uniformly on all days in a

month and it depends upon various factors unlike agricultural or domestic service connections It is further stated that without reference to any of

the above correspondence, a demand has been made from April, 1994 to December, 1994, which is totally arbitrary. Under such- circumstances,

the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

On behalf of the respondents, the Executive Engineer, Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein,

has filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is running a poultry farm, and for

the industrial service the consumption of energy readings will be taken bi-monthly like domestic service. On 22.10.1994, while taking meter

reading, the Assessor found that the meter was struck up. Immediately, the Assessor noted the same in the Defective Register on 22.10.1994.

Subsequently, the third respondent removed the meter on 13.12.1994 and sent the same to the M.R.T. Lab at Coimbatore for test and a new

meter was fixed on the same day. The last reading was taken before the strike of Assessors, that is in February, 1994 and the meter reading is

2/94 - 68740. The reading of the 10th month is 70335. She real recorded consumption for the months February, 1994 to October, 1994 is only

1995 units. It is further stated that since the recorded consumption was very low, a doubt has been raised whether the meter is recording correct

consumption of energy or not. By comparing the consumption pattern for the earlier period, namely, December, 1995 February, 1994, a vast

difference of consumption of energy was found. Accordingly, the average consumption was worked out in terms of Clause 17.10 of Terms and

Conditions of Supply of Electricity and a revised bill was served for Rs.1,41,480 for the period April, 1994 to December, 1994. With these

averments he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. There is no dispute with regard

to the fact that the petitioner herein in was given Service Connection, namely, SC No.56, Santhi Nagar Distribution, Coimbatore aid the connected

load is 6.5 kw. It is seen from the letter of the petitioner, dated 10.2.1995, after noting the meter reading, he had requested the Assistant Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity, Board, the third respondent herein, stating that an opportunity may be given to him before making any disconnection or

claim for compensation. By the impugned proceedings, dated 8.6.1996, the third respondent had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.1,51,695 towards the revised bill for the Service Connection No. 56. The reason mentioned therein is that there is a defect in the meter, A

reading of the said order shows that without reference to notice, explanation/representation of the petitioner or any of the provisions, namely,

Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act or Clause 17 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, the third respondent has passed the

impugned order. Though the respondents are empowered to revise the bill and collect the difference amount from the consumers, undoubtedly,

they have to follow the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on Section 26(6) of Indian. Electricity Act,

1910. The said Section is as follows:-

Meters.-- (1) to (5).....

.(6). Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided,

upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct,

such Inspector shall 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 such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter

shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity:

Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical. Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not

less than seven days'' notice of his intention so to do.

It is clear from the above said provision that in case of any difference or dispute with reference to the meter referred to in sub-section (1) of

Section 26, the sane has to be decided by making an application either by the consumer or the officers of the Electricity Board by an Electrical

Inspector. It is also clear that it is for the Electrical Inspector to verify and ascertain the correctness of the meter and even if there is any defect in

the meter, it is for the Inspector to estimate the amount of average supply, not exceeding six months. A reading of the said provisions show that an

elaborate procedure is provided in case of any defect in the meter. Admittedly, the respondents, particularly, the third respondent has not followed

the said recourse.

The learned, counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Topasa Ramasa Patil Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Others, . In a

similar circumstance. Justice S .Rajendra Babu (His Lordship as he then was) while considering Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, has held

that in respect of faulty recording of meters, the Board cannot raise bill without approaching Electrical Inspector u/s 26(6) and getting meters

tested. The same view has been reiterated by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in H.D. Shourie Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

and Another, .

It is also relevant to refer Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity. The said clause is as follows:

17.10. Where supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where the meter fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no

theft of energy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed

was defective, will be assessed as mentioned hereunder:

The quantity of electricity, supplied during the period in question will be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the

preceding four months in respect of High Tension service connections and two assessment periods (four months) in respect of Low Tension

service connections, provided that the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said four months 2/3 two assessment periods were not

different from those which prevailed, during the period in question. In respect of High. Tension service connections, where the meter fixed for

measuring the maximum demand becomes defective, the maximum demand will be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of the

recorded demand during the previous four months.

When the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in

question is to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the succeeding two assessment periods, provided the

conditions in regard to the use of electricity in respect of such Low Tension service connections are not different,

Eventhough in the counter filed by the second respondent there is a reference to Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, it

is not reflected in the order impugned whether the third respondent had followed any such procedure. It is settled law that it is not open to the

respondents to improve their case by furnishing certain details in the counter affidavit.

I am satisfied that before passing the impugned order, the third respondent neither followed section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act nor

complied with Clause 17.10 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity. I have already stated that before revising the bill or claiming

enhanced amount with regard to defective meter, the respondents have to follow the above referred statutory procedures, ''In the absence of any

such details in the order impugned, the order of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, is liable to be quashed.

In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The

third respondent herein is permitted to proceed afresh and pass appropriate orders as mentioned above, It is stated by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that he had deposited a sum of Rs.26,773 as security deposit at the time when he obtained Service Connection SC No. 56. According

to him, the said amount is still lying with the respondents. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the stand of the petitioner, he is directed to

deposit a sum of Rs.40,000 (Rupees forty thousand only) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before

the third respondent. On such deposit being made, it is open to the third respondent to proceed and pass appropriate orders as stated above. The

writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, all the connected W.M.Ps. are closed.