A.P.RAVANI - (1.) Under Sec. 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 certain difference or disputes are required to be determined by the Electrical Inspector. Before notice under Sec. 24(1) of the Act is given by licensee if reference is made to the Electrical Inspector the licensee cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act and discontinue the electric supply on failure to pay the charges demanded by it Without taking recourse to the provisions of Sec. 24(2) of the Act; merely by raising a dispute may be a genuine and bona fide one (which in this case it is not) can a consumer deprive the licensee or the Board as the case may be from effecting recovery of its dues by resorting to the provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act ? This is the principal question which has surfaced for decision in this petition.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 It is engaged in the business of steel castings. Petitioner No. 2 is a Director of the Company. The petitioner-Company receives electric supply from respondent No. 1 Gujarat Electricity Board as per agreement dated 7/02/1986 with the respondent-Board. After commencement of the supply of electricity there were certain checks by the officers of the Board but the defect could not be found out. On 6/08/1986 the premises of the petitioner-Company were checked by the head office checking squad and it was found that there was working wiring and due to wrong wiring the petitioner-Companys meter was found under-recording 35.18%. Therefore the bills from June 1985 onwards were revised. By letter dated 6/09/1986 (Ann. G ) revised bill for the period commencing from June 198 5/07/1986 was issued by the Board and the petitioner-Company was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 31 22 280 Ps. within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Bill dated 5/09/1986 (Ann. 1 ) for the month of August 1986 for an amount of Rs. 9 55 75 60 rs. was issued. Thus the total amount covered by both the aforesaid documents is Rs. 40 77 356 Ps. The petitioners filed the Special Civil Application in this High Court on 13/09/1986 and challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid documents. Later on by way of amendment the petitioner-Company has challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated 22/09/1986 produced at Ann. K to the petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is bona fide dispute between the parties as regards the dues payable to the Board that prior to the checking which took place on 6/08/1986 the petitioner-Company had paid the bills regularly mistake if any was that of the Board in fixing the wires and the petitioner-Company has not neglected to pay the amount due to the Board. In short it is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of he case here is a bona fide dispute between the parties. Therefore the Board cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act and issue notice calling upon the petitioner-Company to pay up the dues. Even on failure to pay the dues as demanded the Board cannot discontinue the supply of electric energy. At the time of hearing of the petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of notices under Sec. 24(1) of the Act (Ann. K ) to the petition. He has not argued the case as regards revised bill (Ann. G ) and Ann. `I.
(3.) The petition is resisted by the Board on facts as well as on law points. It is inter alia contended that initially there was no dispute as regards the dues of the Board. The checking was carried out in presence of a director of the Company and other Officers as well as an expert called by the company that the petitioner-company has not raised a genuine dispute. It has tried to avoid payment or at any rate makes delay in making payment of the bills. In substance it is submitted that there is no bons fide dispute and the Beard is entitled to issue notice under Sec. 24(1) of the Act. It is also submitted that even if it is held that there is a genuine dispute between the parties since the petitioner-Company has not raised the dispute as provided under Sec. 24(2) of the Act it should he held that the dispute is not bona fide the petition should not be entertained. On other grounds also it is contended that the petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and therefore the same should be rejected.;