Garment Creations vs Sr. Assistant I, Karnataka Electricity Board and Others

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.—The Petitioner is a consumer. He runs a proprietory concern manufacturing garments. He carries on his business activity in industrial shed bearing No. 60 in the Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The industrial shed has electrical installation and meter installed by the Karnataka Electricity Board, the third Respondent herein, bears No. NlP-377-P2-411. On 27-7-1989, petitionner received a demand for Rs. 49,405,40 from the second Respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Sub-Division 3, Karnataka Electricity Board, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore. On enquiry, it was informed that the bill for the aforementioned sum of Rs. 49,405.40 was in respect of back-billing charges for consuming extra load of 22 HP and the meter was not reading properly. He then filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer. That is pending consideration. As matters stood thus, on 16 8-1989, Petitioner received yet another bill by the Respondent demanding a sum of Rs. 63,413.60 out of which a sum of Rs. 21551.45 was demanded as audit short claim. That bill is produced at Annexure ''B''. Again Petitioner contacted the officials of the Board. He was then informed that the meter was running slow by 13% and that has been treated as Audit Short Claim. A letter in that behalf was issued as at Annexure ''C''. Thereafterwards, Petitioner again received a demand for Rs. 21551.40 which is produced at Annexure ''D''. Petitioner being aggrieved by the demands made, has approached this Court contending inter alia that the demands are wholly without the authority of law, arbitrary and therefore, not tenable and as such liable to be quashed by this Court.

Notice regarding rule was issued by this Court on December 2, 1989 Since then the Respondents have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. They have factually brushed aside the demands made earlier in the sum of Rs. 49,000/- and odd as not being the subject-matter of this Writ Petition. With reference to the claim of Rs. 21,551.40, as Audit Short Claim vide Annexures ''B'' and ''D'' to the petition, it is claimed that it is in accordance with Regulation 30.08 of Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988. It is admitted by them that details with regard to the Audit Short Claim has been furnished vide Annexure ''C'' Then there is reference to use of excess load by the Petitioner (unauthorised load) contrary to the agreement under which-the supply of energy was made to him. ''Unauthorised load'', it is explained, means that if the installation is supplied with energy to run motors of ''X'' Horse rower and the consumer uses power X+Y, the surplus ''Y'' becomes unauthorised use of the sanctioned load.

As noticed, the relevant date is anterior to the new regulation. Annexure ''C'' makes a reference to the report by the Meter Inspector on 4-8-1986. Therefore, Regulations of 1988 had no application whatsoever. When this was pointed out the learned Counsel said even if the old Regulations were applied, the demand was in order. Old Regulations applicable, as amended are as follows:

In respect of LT Installations if at any time the connected load specified in the agreement is unauthorisedly increased by the consumer, then without prejudice to any criminal prosecution or other legal action which the supplier may take against the consumer, the consumer shall, on demand, pay to the supplier for such connected load exceeding the load indicated in the agreement at thrice the normal-rate per KW per month for such period as may be deemed justified in the circumstances of any given case subject to a maximum pariod of six months. This amount shall be in addition to the claim already made for the period for which back-billing is preferred.

If the consumer continues excess unauthorised connected load for a period exceeding 3 months, even after notifying the offence to him by the Board, the installation is liable for disconnection after 3 months from the date of issue of such notice, notwithstanding the fact of payment of penal levy.

Annexure ''C'' refers not only to use of unauthorised load, but also to slow running of the meter. The bills issued at Annexures ''A'', ''B'' and ''D'' never pointed out any of these things. It is only when the Petitioner made persistent enquiries, he has been explained orally or has been admittedly issued with Annexure ''C''. From what is extractedes Regin. 41(d)(iv) of the Regulations, it is seen, the explanation as at Annexure ''C'' does not conform to what is mentioned in the Regulation. In fact, it has been impossible for this Court to arrive at the formula by which number of units has been arrived at as the unauthorised load used and load at which it must be taxed as penalty in addition to the charges already paid by the consumer. The learned Counsel also was unable to explain except to state that the first item 914 30 relates to-slow running of the meter by 13%. One does not know 13% of what and for which poriod. Howover, that has been sogght to be explained in the statement of objections.

It is now well-settled principle that what is wanting in the document with which the Petitioner is served cannot be made good by supplimentary allegations made in the affidavit filed as statement of objections. Similarly if

there was a penal rate for six months to be applied before enforcing disconnection for continued unauthorised load as in sub-regulation (iv) of Regulation 44 (Old), there must be an uniform rate. A glance at the various figures show that no such uniform rate is visible in the entries in Annexure ''C''. That leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that Annexure ''C'' is not in confirmity with the Regulation on which the Respondents rely upon.

So far as Annexure ''D'' is concerned, it is less said the better for the respondants. It has demanded from the consumer a sum of Rs. 21,551.40. On that score itself, it is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and therefore untenable in law.

For the above reasons demand as at Annexures ''B'', ''C'' and ''D'' are wholly arbitrary, contrary to the Regulations on which the Respondents rely upon and as such cannot be sustained by this Court. Undoubtedly a faulty meter is covered by Regulation 28(a). That is not mentioned in Annexure ''C''. As earlier noticed, no useful purpose will be served mentioning it in this Court by way of an affidavit filed as a return. The Consumer must know what he is paying for and why he is paying for what is demanded. If the consumer is not put on notice, then the demand will be clearly arbitrary and untenable.

Indian Electricity Act 1910 provider in Section 26 and explanation thereto that a meter shall be deemed to be correct if it has registered amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply within the prescribed limits of error, and a maximum demand indicator or other apparatus referred to in Sub-section (7) shall be deemed to be "correct" if it complies with such conditions as may be prescribed in the case of any such indicator or other apparatus. In Sub-section (9) of the said Section, it clearly provides where there is a dispute between the consumer and the supplier, the Electrical Inspector referred to in that sub-section shall give the other party ten days notice pointing out the nature of the defect in the meter. The Electrical Inspector in that section is the Inspector appointed under the said Act and not the Inspector of the Board who does no more than read the meter. The Board apparently appears to have some confused idea about the competence of the Meter Reading Inspectors to automatically become the Electrical Inspectors contemplated under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910. Having regard to these provisions, it is regretable that this Court must notice that the Karnataka Electricity Board which is established to serve the community at large has acted in utter disregard to its own Regulations.

For the above reasons, Petitioner is entitled to succeed and to the reliefs prayed for. Demands as at Annexures ''B'', ''C'' and ''D'' are quashed. Liberty is reserved however to the Board and its officers to properly issue demand notice specifying every detail in accordance with Regulations applicable at the relevant time and proceed to collect what is legitimately due to the Board. That is the least expected of the Board and its officers.

Subject to the above observation, Petition stands allowed with costs. Board should pay Advocate''s fee of Rs. 500/-.

Rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute.