9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the demand for electricity charges raised after more than three years. 2. Compliance with Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. 3. Basis for calculating electricity consumption in case of a defective meter. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the demand for electricity charges raised after more than three years: The petitioner challenged the demand for electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1183.36, raised by a revised bill dated 1st November 1980, for the period from 11th January 1973 to 29th September 1973. The petitioner argued that no demand can be raised for a period more than three years after the consumption of electricity, citing Section 24 of the Electricity Act and Section 455 of the Municipal Corporation Act. Section 24 allows the licensee to cut off the supply of electricity if charges are not paid after giving seven clear days' notice. Section 455 states that no proceeding for recovery of any sum due shall be commenced after three years from the date the sum becomes due. The court held that the amount of charges becomes due and payable only with the submission of the bill and not earlier. The word "due" in Section 24 means due and payable after a valid bill has been sent to the consumer. Therefore, the respondents are at liberty to send a bill for consumption of electricity even three years after the electricity has been consumed. The court concluded that the period of limitation for recovery of the amount would commence after the submission of the bill, and if payment is not made within three years, the right to file a suit would be lost. 2. Compliance with Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act: The petitioner contended that the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act had not been complied with. Section 26(6) requires that if there is a dispute about the correctness of a meter, the matter must be decided by an Electrical Inspector. If the Inspector finds the meter to be defective, he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied during the period not exceeding six months. The court emphasized that the Electrical Inspector must follow the principles of natural justice, giving both parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The court referred to the case of Hamidullah Khan v. The Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, where it was held that the Board could not unilaterally decide the correctness of the meter or estimate the quantity of energy consumed. Such decisions must be made by the Electrical Inspector, and the revised estimate could cover only a period of six months. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the maximum period for which a bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter is six months, ensuring better checking and maintenance by the licensee. 3. Basis for calculating electricity consumption in case of a defective meter: The petitioner argued that the basis for calculating the correct consumption of electricity during the period should not be with reference to the subsequent period but should be with reference to the period earlier than the period in question. The court referred to Clause 22(d) of the Conditions of Supply, which states that if a meter is found defective, the consumption should be determined by averaging the recorded consumption for the previous three season months. In this case, the respondents estimated the consumption for the period from January 1973 to September 1973 by reference to the actual consumption from January 1974 to September 1974, which was incorrect. The court held that the respondents should have compared the period in question with the corresponding months of the previous three years (1970, 1971, and 1972) and not the subsequent year (1974). This was a clear violation of Clause 22(d). Conclusion: For the aforementioned reasons, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the bill dated 1st November 1980, whereby a demand for Rs. 1183.36 was raised. The petitioner was entitled to costs, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 500.
|
