Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana and another vs Ashwani Kumar

The Punjab State Electricity Board and its officers are the appellants. They raised a demand for an amount of Rs. 1,90,478,79/- against the plaintiff-respondent. He filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Board and its officers from recovering and realising the said amount. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the Board was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the courts below, the Board and itt officers have come up in this second appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

An electricity connection was given to the plaintiff-respondent on January 16, 1983. On May 8, 1984, the meter installed by the Board was removed from the premises of the plaintiff and sealed. After checking the meter, it was reins tailed on May 9, 1984. On January 16, 1985, the flying squad of the Board raided the premises of the plaintiff-respondent. On March 18, 1985, a bill for an amount of Rs. 1,90,478.79/- representing the charges for the period from December 1983 to January 16, 1985 was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. He, through a communication which was sent by registered post asked for the details. Details were furnished to the plaintiff-respondent vide letter dated March 28, 1985 (Ex. PI), which reads as under:--

"Reference your registered letter dated 25-3-1985. It is to inform-you that the extra charges amounting to Rs. 1,90,478.79/- paise has been debited in your bill for the month of 2/85 on account of wrong metering as pointed out by the flying squad. Your accounts have been overhauled with effect from 20-12-1983 to 16-1-1985 after enhancing the already billed consumption by 66% as per decision of the flying squad.

You are accordingly requested to clear the amount within a week failing which the Board may take appropriate action to recover the amount.

Sd/- SDO City Sub-Division."

Aggrieved by the demand raised by the defendant-appellants,, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. It has been inter alia averred in the plaint that the defendant-appellant had removed the existing meter of the plaintiff on 8-5-1984 and reinstalled another meter in the premises of the plaintiff on 9-5-1984 with seals duly affixed. This meter was also periodically checked by the Meter Inspector and the SDO during the course of monthly readings and by other officers also who found the meter operative and the seals in order. And nothing was found to be incorrect and out of order in the metering equipments. The plaintiff-respondent further asserted that "some officials of Punjab State Electricity Board visited the premises of the plainitff in the month of January, 1985 and looked into the electric installations -- The defendants did not immediately inform in writing/verbally that the meter equipments already installed at the premises of the plaintiff relating to account No. LS-20 is incorrect or has been tampered with by the consumer plaintiff. Neither any meter for determining the alleged inaccuracy was installed in series with the old meter as provided in Instruction No. 115 of Sales Manual. -- The defendants did not cause a test of the said meter carried out on having detected the meter in question of the plaintiffs consumer permises to be out of order or incorrect as provided in Clause No. 14(f) of the abridged conditions of supply of Punjab State Electricity Board -- The defendants did not also comply with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 -- The Defendants suddenly served the impugned bill No. 44 Book No. 171 dated 18-3-1985 containing the impugned demand of Rs. 1,90,478.79/- requiring the plaintiff to deposit the same through cheque by 22-3-1985 and in cash by 25-3-1985. This demand has been raised allegedly on the basis of less consumption calculated arbitrarily and capriciously for the period 12/83 to 16-1-1985 as a result of some report of Flying Squad -- No notice was served on the plaintiff regarding the alleged less consumption based on some wrong and illegal report of the Flying Squad." It was also alleged that the action was illegal, unwarranted and against the instructions of the Board. On these premises, the demand was challenged.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-appellants, two preliminary objections were raised i.e. the suit was not maintainable as it was not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. It has been further averred that "the authorised representatives of the answering defendant checked the premises of the plaintiff of A/e No. LS-20 on 16-1-1985 along with other local officers/officials in the presence of plaintiff and the plaintiff refused to sign ECR report. -- It is submitted that the plaintiff was present at the time of checking the meter and he was told that due to defective/incorrect connections of one of the CTs, the meter is recording the energy lesser than the actual consumption since the possible consumption could be calculated arithmatically using standard formula there was no need of calculating the inaccuracy of the meter by comparative method i.e. by installing a meter in series. -- It is submitted that it was in the knowledge of the plaintiff that losses are to be recovered from him and accordingly it was not suddenly debited and sent for a deposit by the consumer through the monthly bill. -- The bill sent to the consumer is itself a notice for making payment. However, the details of this amount were asked by the plaintiff vide his application of dated 25-3-1985 (copy attached as Annexure A), the same were supplied through registered letter on dated 28-3-1985 but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. --The charges had been debited as per sales manual Instruction No. 115. -- It is submitted that there was defect in the wiring of the CT unit and therefore there have been less consumption recorded by the meter. It has never been alleged that the meter was handled and disturbed by the plaintiff." On these premises, impugned action was sought to be sustained.

On the pleadingss of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:--

Whether the defendants are entitled to recover amount in dispute from the plaintiff? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as proved for? OPD

Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the suit in the presentl form is not maintainable? OPD

Relief.

The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant-appellants were not entitled to recover the amount in dispute and that the plaintiff-respondent was entitles to the injunction prayed for. The suit was decreed with costs. The appellants apporached the lower appellate Court. Vide judgment dated February 7, 1991, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were affirmed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants have come in this appeal.

Mr. S.C. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the flying squad having found the connection to be faulty on account of a defect in the wiring, the matter is covered by clauses 15 of the Abridged Conditions of Supply and that the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 are not attracted. Accordingly, he contends that the view taken by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained.

No one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.

I have gone through the record and the evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the appellants. Clause 15 as referred to by the learned counsel reads as under:--

"15. C.T. AND P.T., METERS :

Where the accuracy of meters is not involved and it is a case of incorrect connections, defective C.Ts. P.Ts. genuine calculations mistakes etc., charges would be adjusted in favour of Board/consumer as the case may be for the period the mistake/defect continued."

A perusal of the above provisions shows that it is only when it is found that (i) there arc incorrect connections or defective CTs, P.Ts; and. or (ii) there are genuine mistakes of calculations, then the charges can be adjusted either in favour of the Board or the consumer for the period during which the mistake or the defect continued. It is apparent that am decision which may be taken by the concerned authority can have vital consequences for either party viz. the Board or the consumer. Can such a decision be taken without any notice to the consumer?

It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences has to be passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It envisages the principles of audi alteram partem i.e. call, question and decide. The order has to be passed after giving reasonable opportunity (o the person who is likely to he affected thereby. Thai is the only guarantee against any arbitrary action.

Mr. Goyal contends that unless the provisions of clause 15 as reproduced above are held to be ultra vires the gram of opportunity cannot be introduced therein. The normal principle is that every provision should be interpreted in such a way that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, 1 am of the view that while passing any order under clause 15 it is incumbent upon the concerned authority to grant an opportunity to the consumer. If such an opportunity is not given, the action is bound to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness which may itself attract the wrath of An. 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Goyal further contends that the plaintiff-respondent was present at the time of the raid. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent, it has been categorically averred in para 6 that the officials of the Board had visited his premises in his absence. However, without going into that controversy even if it is assumed that he was present at the time of the raid, there is nothing on record to indicate that he was ever informed of there being incorrect connections, or defective CTs and PTs or any errors of calculations, nor was he informed about the period for which the mistake or defect had continued. All these matters are required to be determined under clause 15 and the consumer has a right to know the exact basis on which the additional demand is sought to be raised. If such a notice is given, he may be able to show by expert or other evidence that in fact the connections were not incorrect or that CTs. or P.Ts. were not defective, or that there was no error of calculations. It would be open to him to show that the defects had not continued for the aforesaid period but lor a lesser period. Nothing of the sort was done in the present case. The precise averment made in the plaint that no notice was given has not been denied. All that has been stated is that the bill sent to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 1.90,478.79/- which was due. Further it -has been mentioned that details were given through a registered letter of March 28, 1985 the contents of which have already been reproduced above. Neither the bill nor the communication reproduced above constitute a notice to the consumer to show cause. In fact, the opportunity as required under the principles of natural justice ought to have been given to the plaintiff-respondent. This was admittedly not given.

Public authorities like the Electricity Board discharge important Governmental functions. A citizen depends on these authorities for the day to day amenities which are so essential for human existence. These authorities have thus a duty to act fairly, judiciously and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Their actions must conform to standards of public morality. It is not open to the officers to act arbitrarily and raise demands for substantial amounts of money without even affording an opportunity of hearing or representation to the citizen.

Today the consumer lives under a constant threat that failure to deposit even an exhorbitam amount demanded by a public authority in spite of the existence of a justifiable cause would result in the supply being disconnected. It is most unfair. A demand may be wholly unjustified. A citizen may fail to deposit for a justifiable cause. The amount may not actually be due. However, most of the time, the citizen is forced to deposit. Failure to do so results in unending harassment. It is necessary that the public authorities like the Electricity Boards, etc. evolve a just and fair procedure so as to avoid harassment to the people they are meant to serve. The present methods are totally subversive of the Rule of law which governs this country. Still further, the implementation is most arbitrary and sometimes it verges on capriciousness. While ''Millions'' of ''tax payers'' money is being spent on running the Boards etc., which have virtually become empires unto themselves, the services provided are deteriorating by the day. Unless some remedial measures are taken at the earliest, the rot that has set in is not likely to end. One shudders at the thought that howsoever high the demand and howsoever unjustifiable or arbitrary the action, the payment has to be made without demur or protest. Surely complete monopoly by the State cannot mean absolute arbitrariness. It is thus imperative that remedial measures are immediately adopted. Some system of accountability must be evolved, otherwise, the problems that this nation faces, shall continue to multiply. Why is it that most of the Governmental organizations suffer losses? How long will the citizens be burdened with the expenses of a ''bloated'' bureaucracy? Some introspection at all levels is necessary. We must ask ourselves- are we giving the country the equal of what is being given to us? This awareness alone can probably cure most of the ills that this nation suffers from.

Coming to the facts of the present case, it is evident that a demand for an amount of Rs. 1,90,478.79 was raised without giving the plaintiff-respondent any opportunity whatsoever. The facts on record indicate that the meter installed at the premises of the respondent was removed on May 8, 1984. It was re-installed on May 9, 1984. No defect was noticed or pointed out at that time and yet a demand has been made on the basis that the meter was recording less consumption since December 20, 1983. Surely, if an opportunity had been given to the respondent, he might have shown that there was no defect or that at least the Board was not entitled to recover any amount for the period prior to May 9, 1984 when the meter had been re-installed. Failure to grant an opportunity seriously prejudiced the interest of the respondent. Further, it is not enough that the respondent had been present at the time of the raid. It was incumbent on the authorities to give him a notice with detailed facts and to make him aware of its proposal to raise the demand. Only then it could have been possible for the person concerned to submit a full and detailed reply. This principle of natural justice was clearly stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, . The appellants clearly failed to observe this elementary rule of natural justice.

Accordingly, it is held that there is no merit in this appeal. It is consequently dismissed. Normally it was a case for the award of the penal costs. However, since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, I make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.