S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) APPELLANT is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is a licensee. A meter for the purpose of recording consumption of electrical energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter. The electronic meter was tested by the officials of the respondent and it was found that the same was running fast by about +1.79% which is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises was of Class -I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court inter alia contending; "4. That the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner was intact and OK and was recording the consumption as per Section 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules, 1956 and there was no percentage error in the recording of the consumption in the meter earlier installed by the agents of the Respondent in the premises of the Petitioner. 5. That the Petitioner believing the intention of the Respondent has permitted the Respondent to install the meter of their own choice believing that the meter which was installed in the premises of the Petitioner is of approved design and specification of ISI and also in accordance with the rules and regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003." In the writ petition, the following prayers were made by him : a. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby declaring the acts of the officials of the Respondents as illegal and malafide in replacing the correct and working meter of the Petitioner by another meter in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No.2540F320018 installed for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. b. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby quashing the meter testing report prepared on 03/03/2005 in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No. 2540F320018 installed for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. c. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent to get the meter of the Petitioner tested as per rule 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules 1956 through an independent agency or in any other manner as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. d. A writ order or direction thereby directing the Respondent to calibrate, seal and install at the premises of the Petitioner, the electro mechanical energy meter of ISI make procured by the Petitioner in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No. 2540F320018 for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi after replacing the existing meter." The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by a judgment and Order dated 14.12.2005. A letters patent appeal was preferred thereagainst and by reason of the impugned judgment, the same has been dismissed. Appellant is, thus, before us.
(3.) MR. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal, inter alia, would submit; (i) Respondent being a licensee governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred as "1910 Act"); the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as "1948 Act") or the subsequent Acts namely Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "2000 Act") or Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being not applicable, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment. (ii) Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 whereupon reliance was placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit is clearly inapplicable and thus reliance placed thereupon by the High Court in this behalf was wholly unwarranted. (iii) The tariff framed by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any jurisdiction upon the respondents to remove the correct meter and replace the same by another correct meter. (iv) The only provision which could have been taken recourse to for replacement of a meter being Section 26 of the 1910 Act and the same being not applicable in this case, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained. (v) Margin of error in the meter being 1.79% in one case and 3.79% in the other which is in excess of 1 per cent of error provided for in the proviso appended to Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, the appellant had a legal right to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to rely thereupon for the purpose of calculating the amount of consumption of electrical energy recorded therein. (vi) In any view of the matter, replacement of the meter having taken place prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act and the regulations framed thereunder, the High Court was wholly incorrect in arriving at its findings. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would principally rely upon Section 20 of the 1910 Act to submit that by reason thereof a general power has been conferred on the licensee to remove a correct meter and replace the same by another meter which records more accurately the actual consumption of electrical energy having regard to the development of technology and thus such an action, being de -hors provisions of Section 26 of the Act, would not be controlled thereby. Appellant being a consumer of electrical energy from Delhi Vidyut Board which was a State Electricity Board within the meaning of 1948 Act and the respondent being its successor in terms of 2000 Act and 2003 Act, the impugned judgment is unassailable.;