HAMIDULLAH KHANJABALPUR Vs. CHAIRMANMADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARDRAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. He runs an ice factcty for which he obtained service connection No. 303768/9 of 15 Horse Power load. By letter dated 29th June, 1979 (Annexure A) the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 18,123.87, being the revised demand for the period from 11th Sept., 1974 to June, 1979 on account of charges for consumption of electricity as explained in letter dated 30th June, 1979 (Annexure R-2). There was thereafter a further demand of Rs. 8,113.50 for the period from June, 1979 to Jan, 1980. A consolidated demand of Rs. 26,249.37 was then issued which is Annexure-C. On the failure of the petitioner to pay this amount, proceedings for recovery of the demand as arrears of land revenue were started. A notice was issued by the Tahsildar which is Annexure E. By this petition under Article 226 of the Board, Ra... Page 2 of 5 Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the demands Annexure A and C and the notice Annexure-E.

(2.) It is not in dispute that there was a meter installed by the Electricity Board for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied to the petitioner. The meter belonged to the Board. The petitioner was paying the bills which were sent in accordance with the meter reading. The revised demand of Rs. 18,123.87 for the period from 11th Sept., 1974 to June, 1979 was issued for the reasons indicated by the Divisional Engineer in his letter dated 30th June, 1979 which is Annexure R-2. It is stated therein that meters installed in the petitioner's premises were replaced on 31st May, 1978 and 28th March, 1979 and as they were not recording the consumption correctly and digital figures were found disturbed, a new check meter was installed on 31st March, 1979 and the billing for the period from 11th Sept., 1974 to June, 1979 was revised on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter. When the petitioner revised the revised demand, he gave a reply through his lawyer on 7th July, 1979 which is Annexure-B. In this reply, he contended that the meters earlier installed were not defective and they ware illegally removed. It was further stated that the Board could not make any revised demand without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same contentions before us and has argued that in the absence of any decision by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it was not open to the Board to make a revised demand.

(3.) Section 26(1) provides that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter. The Board is a licencee for purposes of the Act. The meter was the property of the licensee. It is the duty of the licensee under Section 26(2) to keep the meter correct and in default of doing so, the consumer ceases to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter for so long as the default continues. Section 26(4) empowers the licensee or any person duly authorised by the licensee at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer of the intention to have access to and he at liberty to inspect and test and for that purpose, to take of and remove any meter. All reasonable expenses of and incidental to such inspecting, testing, taking off and removing, if the meter is found to be otherwise than correct, can be recovered from the consumer and where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of such reasonable expenses, the matter is to be referred to an Electrical Inspector whose decision is final. There is, however, an important proviso to Section 26 (4) which restricts the power to take off or remove the meter if a difference or dispute of the nature described in Section 26(6) has arisen until the matter has been determined as therein provided. Section 26(6) reads as follows:-