Deepak Jaiswal vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Others

S.N. Jha, J.—The Petitioner has questioned the correctness of the electricity bill for the month of September, 1998 in this writ petition. The relevant facts are as follows:

The Petitioner holds electric connection No. 220741. The connection was given to him on 9.9.87 for 5 KW load under the CS III category. A consolidated bill for the months of September, 1997 to January, 1998 for the sum of Rs. 6264/- was issued in January, 1998. The Petitioner lodged protest objecting to the amount shown in the bill but later when the account was explained to him he paid the bill along with the bills Issued for the subsequent months on 6.7.98. According to the Petitioner the bills were raised for the months of February, 1998 for 337 units, for the month of March, 1998 for 86 units, for the month of April, 1998 for 58 units, for the month of May, 1998 for 179 units, for the month of June, 1998 for 211 units, for the month of July, 1998 for 176 units and for the month of August, for 07 units. However, for the month of September, 1998 the bill was raised for 10197 units. According to the Petitioner, having regard to the level of electricity consumed in the previous months, it cannot be said that so much of energy would be consumed in one month; the bill has been arbitrarily prepared and therefore, fit to be quashed.

In the counter affidavit it has been stated that on 28.2.98 itself vide Annexure-B, the Petitioner was informed that the level of energy shown in the meter to have been consumed appeared to be incorrect and "as per consumption it seems that meter is not in working condition". Hence he was suggested to get the meter replaced if it is defective at the earliest possible. According to the Respondents when the level of energy consumption as shown in the meter did not increase; instead, went on decreasing so much so that it decreased to only 7 units in the month of August, 1998, and the Petitioner also did not take step to get the meters checked, the officers of the Board formed a team and went to the Petitioner''s premises for a surprise check. They could not verify the actual connected load as the premises was closed but the meter was checked in presence of the representative of the Petitioner who duly signed the meter inspection report, and it transpired that the past reading taken by the meter reader were not correct "perhaps due to darkness at the place of the meter installed". Counsel for the Board submitted that the units shown in the bill to have been consumed for September, 1998 do not represent the unit of electricity consumed in one month; rather it represents the energy consumed during the preceding months as well, since the reading could not be properly taken by the meter reader earlier; perhaps, because he failed to read the digits or missed one of them, the correct units could not be mentioned in the previous bills. In support of the case of the Board counsel submitted that the Petitioner having taken a commercial connection for 5 KW load under CS III category, it can not be believed that the consumption would be as low as 06 units for the month of January, 1998, 337 units for the month of February, 1998, 86 units for the month of March, 1998, 58 units for the month of April, 1998, 179 units for May, 1998, 211 units for the month of June, 1998, 176 units for July, 1998 and 07 units for August, 1998. According to the Board, the average of the consumption shown for the eight months'' disputed period from January, 1998 to August, 1998 comes to 132.5 units whereas for the subsequent eight months'' period from October, 1998 to May, 1999 about which there is no dispute, the average comes to 760 units. This fact is sufficient, according to the counsel, to demolish the Petitioner''s contention regarding the arbitrariness or correctness of the impugned bill. Counsel submitted that 10197 units shown in the bill for September, 1998 does not really show the consumption of energy of the particular month, rather it includes the energy actually consumed during the preceding months but not shown in the previous bills on account of the fault in meter reading.

I find sufficient force in the contention of the counsel for the Board. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances, that the earlier bills for the months of January to August, 1998 were not correct in the sense that they did not show the correct level of electricity consumed by the Petitioner, and the units shown in the bill for September, 1998 includes also the energy consumed in those months and therefore, it is not correct to say that the Petitioner has been charged for 10197 units only for one month. Consequently, I do not find any substance in the grievance of the Petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.