2006 (2) TMI 712 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and mala fides of replacing the petitioner's working meter with a new electronic meter.
2. Validity of the meter testing report dated 3.3.2005.
3. Refund of excess bill recovered based on the new meter.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and mala fides of replacing the petitioner's working meter with a new electronic meter:
The petitioner alleged that the existing electro-mechanical meter was intact and functioning correctly as per Rule 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules, 1956. The replacement led to inflated readings and bills. The court found that the policy decision to replace old meters with electronic ones was part of power sector reforms to address financial crises and theft of electricity. The decision was based on global standards and endorsed by various authorities, including the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Ministry of Power. The court emphasized that technological advancements in the electricity sector should not be obstructed by legal proceedings, and the law must evolve with technology. The court upheld the power of the licensee to replace meters under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and Regulation 17(ii) of the DERC (Performance Standards-Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002.

2. Validity of the meter testing report dated 3.3.2005:
The petitioner contested the accuracy of the new electronic meter, leading to inflated bills. The court noted that independent expert agencies like DERC, BIS, and CPRI had audited the electronic meters and found them compliant with BIS specifications. A test conducted by CPRI officials revealed that the meter was functioning correctly, with a negligible error of 0.01%. The court found no reason to disbelieve the advantages and accuracy of electronic meters as outlined in the counter-affidavit, which highlighted their superiority over electro-mechanical meters in terms of accuracy, stability, and tamper-resistance.

3. Refund of excess bill recovered based on the new meter:
The petitioner sought a refund of the excess bill charged based on the new meter. The court referred to Section 42(5) and (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, which provides a mechanism for consumers to address grievances through a Forum and an Ombudsman. The court emphasized that consumers should utilize these alternative remedies for disputes regarding electricity bills, rather than filing writ petitions. The court also noted that the respondent had engaged an international consultancy firm to audit their billing system and had taken various initiatives to streamline the consumer billing process.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the legality of replacing electro-mechanical meters with electronic meters and the validity of the meter testing report. The court emphasized the importance of technological advancements in the electricity sector and the need for consumers to utilize alternative remedies for billing disputes. The appeal was found to lack merit, and the court affirmed the respondent's actions as consistent with legal and regulatory frameworks.