PANCHSHEEL POLY CLINIC NURSING HOME Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MEERUT
LAWS(ALL)-1998-2-55
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 24,1998

PANCHSHEEL POLY CLINIC/NURSING HOME Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEERUT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying that the auction notice (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to issue correct bills as per compromise decree and to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the decision of the writ petition and which emerge out of the affidavits filed by the parties are as follows :1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Polyclinic/Nursing Home at Garh Road, Meerut. An electricity connection of 55 KV was released to the petitioners and a meter was installed on 20-7-1988. In the sealing certificate, the C.T. ratio was mentioned as 100/5 and the multiplying factor (M.F.) was shown as '1'.
(2.) The petitioner's premises were checked on 10-6-1992 by the staff of U.P. State Electricity Board (for short UPSEB) who suspected that the meter was running slow and Nursing Home had six air conditioners. It was proposed that a check meter be installed. A check report was prepared which was also signed by the petitioners' representative, copy filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.
(3.) The entire metering equipments were checked by meter department on 17-6-1992 in presence of petitioner No. 2. It was then revealed that C.T. installed therein was of the ratio of 200/5 and therefore the M.F. was '2' and not '1' as noted in the sealing certificate. The checking report was prepared which was signed by the representative of the petitioner (petitioner No. 2) and copy of the same has been filed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. It was mentioned in the report that as the correct M.F. was '2', the consumer had paid only half of the charges of the electricity consumed by him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.