Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
M.P.E.B. & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. BASANTIBAI
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1987
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 71 1988 SCR (1) 890
1988 SCC (1) 23 JT 1987 (4) 294
1987 SCALE (2)985
ACT:
Indian Electricity Act, 1910: Section 26(6)-Scope of-
Disputes regarding electricity meter-Jurisdiction of
Electrical Inspector to decide-Electricity Board-Whether
competent to issue supplementary bill for energy consumed
during pendency of dispute regarding inherent defect/fault
in the meter.
HEADNOTE:
%
An electricity meter with three phases installed by
appellant No. 1 for running an oil mill owned by the
respondent was burnt. This was brought to the notice of
appellant No. 4. The respondent was directed to deposit a
certain amount towards price of the meter and the meter
connection charges, which the respondent complied, but the
meter was not installed, nor electric supply connection
restored. The respondent requested appellant No. 1 to
restore electric supply by installation of another meter.
However, appellant No. 1 sent a letter dated 4.3.1983
calling upon respondent to pay a sum of Rs.12,346.10 as per
the attached supplementary bill dated 2.3.1983, prepared on
the basis that the meter was not recording actual energy
supplied and consumed, as it was running on two phases,
since one of the three phases was not working, and
threatening disconnection of supply without notice, for non-
payment.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the legality of the aforesaid letter and the
supplementary bill.
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that when
the power connection was checked by an Assistant Engineer of
the Board, it was found that out of three phases, one phase
was not working, and body seal of the meter was intact and,
therefore, respondent was informed that the bill should be
revised due to non-working of one phase. It was alleged that
respondent got the meter burnt, since it did not burn
ordinarily, and the body seal of the meter was broken, and
the meter tampered with subsequently in order to avoid any
liability.
The High Court held that since the dispute, was as to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
whether the meter was or was not correct it had to be
decided by the Electrical
891
Inspector, under sub-section (6) of s. 26 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 and so long as it was not decided,
appellant No. 1 was not competent to prepare the
supplementary bill or revised bill, and quashed the letter
dated 4.3.83 and supplementary bill of 2.3.83, as illegal.
In the appeal by special leave it was urged on behalf
of the appellants that the respondent committed fraud in
breaking the body seal of the meter and running the same,
and as such, the dispute did not attract the provisions of
s. 26(6) of the Act and the dispute could not be decided by
the Electrical Inspector.
Dismising the appeal,
^
HELD: Under sub-section (6) of s. 26 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910, it is only the dispute as to whether
any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is/is not correct
or it is inherently defective or faulty, not recording
correctly the electricity consumed, which can be decided by
the Electrical Inspector. [896A-B]
It is also evident from the said provision that till
the decision is made, no supplementary bill can be prepared
by the Board, estimating the energy supplied to the
consumer, as the Board is not empowered by the Act to do so.
[896C-D]
A dispute regarding the commission of fraud in
tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is one
outside the ambit of section 26(6) of the Act. An Electrical
Inspector has no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud.
[895H; 896A]
In the instant case, it appears from the report of the
Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one
phase of the meter was not working at all; so, there is
undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is
a correct one or a faulty one. This dispute, therefore,
squarely falls within the provisions of the Act, and it has
been rightly held by the High Court that it is the
Electrical Inspector, who alone is empowered to decide the
dispute. 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 he paid in respect of such energy
consumed within a period not exceeding six months. The
appellant No. 1 is not competent, pending the determination
of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector, to issue the
impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of
electricity
892
for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by
it. The A Board is also not competent to prepare and send a
supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the
respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and
did not record any consumption of energy. [896B-C; 897F-H;
898A-B]
It appears from the report of the Executive Engineer
dated 17th February, 1983 that the body seal of the meter
was intact at the time of inspection. He only found that the
meter which was installed was closed on one phase.
Therefore, there is no question of fraud in breaking the
body seal of the meter. The story of so-called fraud was an
after thought, and was not raised at any stage prior to the
filing of the return in the High Court. [894E-F]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
Gadag Betgiri, Municipal Borough, Gadag v. The
Electrical Inspector, Government Electrical Inspectorate,
Government of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mysore 209 and M. P.
Electricity Board Jabalpur and another v. Chhanganlal, AIR
1981 M.P. 170 approved.
Abdul Razak v. M.P. Electricity Board, [1982] M.P.L.J.
22 overruled.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 716 of
1985.
From the Judgment and order dated 20.9.1984 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 307 of 1983.
K.K. Venugopal, S.K. Gambhir and Sanjay Sareen for the
Appellants.
C.P. Mittal and C.K. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J. This appeal on special leave is directed
against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh on 20.9.1984 in Civil Misc. Petition No. 307
of 1983 allowing the writ petition and directing the
respondents to reconnect and restore the electric supply by
installing another meter.
The petitioner is a proprietor of Santosh Industries
DII BC, Sector, Sanwar Road, Indore and she obtained service
connection
893
No. 192352 of 30 H.P. Ioad for running the oil mill. The
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the appellant No. 1, who
is the licensee installed a meter with three phases for
ascertaining the amount of energy supplied and consumed by
the petitioner under the aforesaid service connection. On
February 18, 1983 the meter was burnt and this was brought
to the notice of respondent No. 4, an Assistant Engineer of
the Zone wherein the petitioner’s industry is situated. On
March 1, 1983 the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum
of Rs.433 as price of the meter and Rs.44 for meter
connection charges.
The sum was deposited on the same day but no meter was
installed and the electric supply connection was not
restored. A letter was sent by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 1 requesting to restore the electric supply
by installation of another meter. The State Electricity
Board sent a letter dated 4.3.1983 calling upon the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12346.10 as per the
supplementary bill dated 2.3.1983 sent alongwith said letter
failing which the supply will be disconnected without
notice. The basis of the supplementary bill was that the
meter was not recording actual energy supplied and consumed
as it was found that one phase out of the three phases was
not working and the meter was running two phases only.
The petitioners filed a writ petition No. 307 of 1983
challenging the said letter dated 4.3.1983 as well as the
supplementary bill dated 2.3.1983 on the ground that the
demand made on the basis of the supplementary bill was
illegal.
A return was filed by the respondent to the effect that
on 17.2.1983 the power connection was checked by an
Assistant Engineer of the respondent Board and it was found
that out of three phases one phase was not working. The body
seal of the meter was found to be intact. It has also been
stated therein that the petitioner was informed that the
bill should be revised due to non working of one phase as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
found at the time of checking. It has also been submitted
that the petitioner got the meter burnt as the meter
according to respondent did not burn ordinarily. It was
further alleged that body seal of the meter was broken. This
tampering of the meter was alleged to have been done between
17 to 19 of February, 1983 in order to avoid any liability.
The respondent further alleged that the petitioner’s husband
refused to sign the panchnama which was prepared on the
spot.
The High Court of Madhyra Pradesh after hearing the
parties held that since the dispute relates to whether the
meter is or is not
894
correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and so
long the A said dispute is not decided, the respondent No.
1, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was not competent to
prepare the supplementary bill or revised bill as the said
power is entrusted to the Electrical Inspector under sub-
section 6 of section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
(Act 9 of 19 10). It has been further held that the alleged
notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of
supplementary bill before seeking reconnection or
restoration of electricity supply was also not in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. The letter dated 4.3.1983
issued by the respondent no. 1 as well as the supplementary
bill of 2.3.1983 were quashed holding the same to be
illegal. The question of fraud was not even intimated to the
respondent consumer. It was raised for the first time in the
return to the writ petition. It is an after thought. The
respondents were directed to reconnect and restore the
electricity supply by installing another meter.
Against this judgment and order the instant appeal on
special leave has been filed. It has been urged by Mr.
Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that the respondent committed fraud in breaking
the body seal of the meter and in burning the same and as
such the dispute does not attract the provisions of the
section 26(6) of the said Act. This dispute cannot be
decided by the Electrical Inspector. In support of the
submission our attention was drawn to the said provisions of
the Act. It appears from the report of the Executive
Engineer dated 17th February, 1983 that the body seal of the
meter was intact at the time of inspection. He only found
that the meter which was installed was closed on one phase.
So the contention that there was fraud in breaking the body
seal of the meter cannot be sustained. Moreover, it has been
found that the question of fraud was raised at no stage
prior to the filing of the return in the High Court. The
said story of so called fraud was an after thought. Mr.
Venugopal after seeing the report of the Assistant Engineer
frankly submitted that he would not press the ground of
fraud.
In order to decide the question whether the impugned
notice dated 4.3.1983 can be issued by appellant calling
upon her to pay the amount of supplementary bill as well as
whether supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board when
there is a dispute relating to question whether the meter is
a correct meter or not, it is necessary to consider the
relevant provisions of sub sections (1) and (6) of section
26 of the said Act. The said provisions are set out
hereunder:
"26(1): In the absence of an agreement to the
contrary,
895
the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
electrical quantity contained in the supply shall
be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and
the licensee shall, if required by the consumer,
cause the consumer to be supplied with such a
meter:
Provided that the licensee may require the
consumer to give him security for the price of a
meter and enter into an agreement for the hire
thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a
meter."
"26(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 the 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
has 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."
It is evident from the provisions of this section that
a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section
(1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical
Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It
is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is
correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion
that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount
of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical
quantity contained in the supply during a period not
exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the
same. 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 of section 26. Such a dispute regarding the
commission
896
Of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body
seal is A outside the ambit of section 26(6) of the said
Act. An Electrical Inspector, has, therefore, no
jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the
dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is
inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the
electricity consumed, can be decided by the Electrical
Inspector under the provisions of the said Act.
In the instant case it appears from the report of the
Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one
phase of the meter was not working at all, so there is
undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is
a correct one or a faulty meter and this dispute has to be
decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision will be
final. It is also evident from the said provision that till
the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer,
as the Board is not empowered to do so by the said Act. It
is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations
made in the case of Gadag Betgiri, Municipal Borough, Gadag
v. The Electrical lnspector. Government Electrical
Inspectorate, Government of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mysore 209 as
follows:-
"What the Inspector may decide under sub-
section 6 is whether or not the readings
obtainable from the meter are accurate and whether
the meter is faulty or mechanically defective,
producing erroneous readings. That is the limited
adjudication which in my opinion, an Inspector or
other authority functioning under sub-section 6
may make under its provisions. "
x x x x x x x x x
"In my opinion, the legislative intent
underlying section 26(6) of the Act is similar.
The only question into which the Inspector or
other authority functioning under that sub-section
might investigate is, whether the meter is a false
meter capable of improper use or whether it
registers correctly and accurately the quantity of
electrical energy passing through it. If in that
sense, the meter installed by respondent 2 this
case was a correct meter as it undoubtedly was and
as it has’been admitted to be, the fact that
respondent 2, even if what the petitioner states
is true, so manipulated the supply lines that more
energy than what was consumed by the petitioner
was allowed to pass through the
897
meter, would not render the meter which was
otherwise correct, an incorrect meter."
This decision was followed in M.P. Electricity Board,
Jabalpur and another v. Chhanganlal, AIR 1981 M.P. 170 where
it has been observed:-
"Where an electric meter is not registering
correct consumption of energy not because there is
any defect in the meter but because the wiring is
defective Section 26(6) will not be attracted and
the meter not being defective the question of
arbitration by Electrical Inspector will not also
arise . "
A contrary view was however taken in the case of Abdul
Razak v. M.P. Electricity Board, [1982] M.P.L.J. 22 where it
has been held that:-
"About the fittings on the meter and
tampering them in such a manner that the reading
of the energy would not be correct, such a dispute
in view of the language of section 26(6) read with
Rule 3 of Schedule VI of the Electricity Act
squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the
Electrical Inspector.
We are however, unable to accept this contrary view as
it is obvious from the provisions of section 26 sub-section
6 of the said Act that dispute whether a meter is correct or
faulty would come under the said provisions and not the
dispute regarding tampering of meter. In our view, the view
taken about the scope of section 26(6) in the decisions
cited above are correct. In the instant case the dispute
relates to whether the meter is correet one or it is faulty
not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil
mill of the respondent. So this dispute squarely falls
within the provisions of the said Act and as such it has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
been rightly found by the High Court that it is the
Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the
dispute. 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. The
appellant No. 1 is not competent pending the determination
of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the
impugned notice threatening
898
disconnection of supply of electricity for non payment of
supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The Board is
also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill
in respect of energy consumed by the respondent from the one
phase which stopped functioning and did not record any
consumption of energy. For the reasons, aforesaid we affirm
the order of High Court and dismiss the appeal without
costs.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
899