CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment dated 7th August, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1377/1986. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has not only quashed the revised electricity bill raised by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ("the Board", for short), but has also permitted the respondent No. 1 to recover the electricity bill amount paid by the respondent No. 1 to the Board. In this appeal, the Board has challenged only the latter part of the judgment; it is not aggrieved by the former part of the judgment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm running a business of storing of food articles in cold storage as well as running an ice factory. According to the respondent No. 1, there used to be an electricity connection in its factory. It was regularly paying the electricity bill as raised by the Board. However, in the month of February, 1984, the electric meter was changed. On 7. 6. 1985, some officers of the Board came to the appellant's factory premises. THEy discovered that the meter had been tempered with; it was recording merely one-third of the actual consumption of electricity. After carrying out the inspection, a report was drawn up by the officers. On the basis of the said report, an additional bill for Rs. 1,22,354. 80 was sent alongwith a charge of Rs. 16,021. 20 as electricity tax. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the said additional bill, it filed a writ petition before this Court. In the writ petition, the respondent claimed that the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (`the Act', for short) has been violated. According to Section 24, an electricity connection can be disconnected only after giving seven days clear notice to the consumer. According to Section 24 (2), where any difference and dispute is required to be determined by the electrical inspector, the licensee shall not exercise the power of disconnection until the inspector has given his decision. However, the Board had disconnected the electric connection without giving any notice for seven clear days and without permitting the respondent to raise the dispute before the electrical inspector. Moreover, in case a defective meter has been installed, according to Section 26 (6) of the Act, the matter has to be referred to and has to be decided by the electrical inspector. However, in the present case, the procedure was not followed. Although, the Board had filed its reply, although it had claimed that the meter was tampered with and was recording only one-third of the consumption, during the course of argument, the Board conceded that in fact, a defective meter had been installed by it. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge concluded that instead of following the mandate of Section 26 (6) of the Act, an additional bill was raised by the Board. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that illegal demand has been raised by the Board. Thus, the learned Single Judge had not only quashed and set aside the additional bill, but also permitted the respondent No. 1 to recover the amount paid by it to the Board. Hence this appeal before this Court. Mr. Virendra Lodha, the learned counsel for the appellant- Board, has argued that although the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the additional bill, the learned Single Judge was not justified in permitting the respondent No. 1 to recover the amount of the additional bill from the Board. In fact, according to the learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge should have directed that the meter be tested by the electrical inspector as warranted by law. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has over-stepped his jurisdiction. On the other hand, Mr. R. P. Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, has argued that the meter was examined on 7. 6. 1985, the impugned judgment has been passed in 1997 i. e. , after a lapse of twelve years. For, twelve long years the Board did not test the meter in accordance with Section 26 (6) of the Act. No fruitful purpose would have been served to test the meter after an inordinate delay of twelve years. Moreover, within the interim period, the meter would have become disfunctional by itself. Moreso, since the amount was illegally charged, the Board had no justification for retaining the amount with it. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in permitting the respondent No. 1 to recover the said amount from the Board. He has, therefore, supported the impugned judgment. We have heard both the learned counsels, have perused the impugned order and have examined the record.
(3.) THE due process of law is a golden light that permits not only the Constitution law, but also illuminates the statutory laws. THE doctrine of due process of law contemplates that before a citizen can be deprived of his civil or political rights, a process prescribed by law- that too a reasonable process so prescribed by law- should be followed. For, every person enjoys certain fundamental rights. While the former are guaranteed by the Constitution of the country, the latter are secured by Legislation. THErefore, not only the substantive rights guaranteed by the Constitution or given by the statutes are important, but at times, the procedure for depriving or denying such rights are more significant. Justice William O. Douglaus of the Supreme Court of United States has said "it is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law or rule by whim or caprice. " Thus, we have to see if the procedure has been followed or not. Undoubtedly Section 24 contains the procedure before an electric connection can be disconnected by the Board. Similarly Section 26 (6) of the Act prescribes the procedure for estimating the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply. Section 26 (6) of the Act is an under:-      " (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct, but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter, shall in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity; Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do. " The said provision was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Electricity Board vs. Smt. Basanti Bai (1988) 1 SCC 23 ). The Apex Court held as under: A dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub- section (1) of Section 26 of the Act is or is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties under sub-section (2) If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section (6)If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. But pending the determination of dispute as to correctness of the meter by the Electrical Inspector, the State Electricity Board is neither competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the consumer nor competent to issue notice to the consumer threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non- payment of the supplementary bill. Relying on Basanti Bal's case (supra), the learned Single Judge had correctly held that the Board had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 26 (6) of the Act. ;