M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has impugned the supplementary bill dated 14.12.2000 raised by the respondent -Board for a sum of Rs. 15,21,870.48 P. for the period from 24.8.1999 to 1.3.2000 on the ground that during that period the electric meter was found defective.
(2.) PETITIONERS case is that it is a Medium Scale Industry and it has taken electric connection in 1974 for a contract demand of 500 KVA which was later on enhanced to 800 KVA in June, 1985, It is contended that on 11.7.1995 an electronic meter was installed in the factory premises of the petitioner and the same was running properly On 20.8.1999 the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the officials of the Board and a metering unit test report was prepared. Because of some defect in the meter it was removed on 10.3.2000. The petitioner said to have paid the monthly bill raised for the period form 24.8.1999 to 10.3.2000 on the basis of the reading recorded in the meter. However, the petitioner was surprised to receive the supplementary bill for the aforesaid period on the ground that the meter was defective and was running slowly. The stand of the respondents in the counter -affidavit is that on 27.11.1999 an inspection was carried on by the Electrical Superintending Engineer in relation to the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner and a decision was taken to send the old meter of the petitioner to the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi for testing and in place of old meter a new meter was installed. The old meter was accordingly properly sealed in presence of the representatives of the Board, and the petitioner. On 11.3.2000 a pre - commissioning test of the new installed meter was carried out and found to be satisfactory. The National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi sent the test report of the old meter whereby it was detected that the meter of the petitioner was running slow by 33%. On the basis of the test report of the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi, the concerned respondents revised the average bill of the petitioner for the period from 24.8.1999 to 10.3.2000 and the impugned bill was sent. According to the respondents there has been no illegality in raising the supplementary bill and the same is in accordance with law.
(3.) MR . Mittal learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondents have no jurisdiction to declare the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner as defective without having made any reference to the Electrical Inspector for verification and declaration in terms of the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. According to the learned counsel the supplementary bill raised on the basis of the decision of the Board is wholly unjustified. The contention of the respondents on other hand is that the provisions of Section 26(6) of the aforesaid Act has no application in the instant case for the reason that the meter was removed, sealed and sent to the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi with the knowledge of the petitioner who never protested such removal of the meter for the purpose of testing.;