Case Law Details
Torrent Power Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors (Gujarat High Court)
In the case of Torrent Power Ltd. vs State of Gujarat & Ors, the Gujarat High Court was called upon to address significant legal questions pertaining to electricity billing and the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner, Torrent Power Ltd., challenged orders issued by the State Government and the Electrical Inspector that had significant financial implications for both the petitioner and the respondent consumer.
Torrent Power Ltd., the petitioner, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking to quash the orders dated May 29, 2003, and March 6, 2003, issued by the State Government and the Electrical Inspector, respectively. The core issue revolved around the assessment of electricity consumption due to a stopped meter for the period from May 12, 2000, to April 26, 2002.
The petitioner argued that the stopped meter assessment conducted as per Annexure-A did not fall within the purview of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Consequently, the Electrical Inspector and the State Government lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding this assessment. The petitioner emphasized that the respondent consumer was liable to pay the assessed amount along with interest for delayed payment as per the statutory conditions of supply.
The respondent consumer contended that the jurisdictional issue was never raised before the Electrical Inspector or the State Government. They argued that the petitioner, having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector, could not challenge it at this stage. The respondent also highlighted the lack of timely communication from the petitioner regarding the stopped meter and questioned the validity of the supplementary bill issued after the meter was changed.
The court meticulously examined the rival submissions and relevant statutory provisions. It referenced several precedents, including Gitar Laboratories vs Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited, where it was held that stopped meters do not fall within the ambit of Section 26(6) of the Act, as this section pertains to disputes regarding the correctness of meters. The court reaffirmed this position, noting that a stopped meter implies no meter reading, thereby excluding it from the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector.
The court also considered other landmark judgments, such as Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. vs Union of India and Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking vs Laffans (India) Pvt. Ltd., which reinforced the principle that disputes involving non-functional meters do not fall under Section 26(6) of the Act. These precedents underscored that the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector is limited to cases involving the accuracy of meter readings, not stopped meters.
Based on the statutory framework and judicial precedents, the Gujarat High Court concluded that the orders issued by the Electrical Inspector and the State Government were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, both orders were quashed, and the respondent consumer was directed to pay the supplementary bill raised by Torrent Power Ltd., with adjustments for any amounts already paid. The court further mandated that if the respondent failed to make the payment within a month, the petitioner could recover the amount with applicable interest.
The Gujarat High Court’s judgment in the case of Torrent Power Ltd. vs State of Gujarat & Ors provides crucial clarity on the jurisdictional limits of the Electrical Inspector under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. By distinguishing between disputes regarding meter accuracy and those involving stopped meters, the court upheld the principle that jurisdiction must align with the specific nature of the dispute.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 29.05.2003 passed by the respondent No.1 State Government as per Annexure F to the petition. The petitioner also prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2003 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Electrical Inspector as per Annexure D to the petition. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration from this court that the stop meter assessment carried out by the petitioner as per Annexure A does not fall within he scope and parameters of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute with regard to the same and the Respondent No.3 Consumer is liable to make payment as per Annexure A together with interest for delayed payment @ 24% p.a. as per the Conditions of Supply.
2. This Court has admitted the petition on 25th of September, 2003 and it was observed by the Court that in the meantime it would be open to the petitioner to prepare a bill on the basis of the order passed by the Electrical Inspector and recover the said amount without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in this petition. On service of notice of Rule, a detailed affidavit in reply was filed by the consumer on 15th October, 2003.
3. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Ms. Manisha Narsinghani, learned AGP, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. U.A. Trivedi, learned Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3 consumer.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 is a consumer of the electrical energy being supplied by the petitioner vide Service No. 3124097 for residential use and Service No. 3013874 for commercial purpose. These services were connected prior to 12.05.2000 with meters, one for lighting and another for Motive Power. This service was used as common service of Devani Apartment Block No.1, in lighting meter and regular consumption was recorded between the periods from 12.05.2000 to 26.04.2002. This being a case of stop meter, assessment was carried out as per Rules for a sum of Rs. 1,77,359.46ps and the consumer was informed by letter dated 01.07.2002 to pay the said amount. The assessment was carried out on the basis of average consumption recorded for the subsequent period from 26.04.2002 to 12.06.2002.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the dispute under Section 26(6) of the Act was not maintainable at law, the consumer approached the respondent No.2 by raising a dispute under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as if the dispute was pertaining to correctness of the meter. The respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 26.08.2002 and 06.02.2003 calling the petitioner for hearing. The petitioner made written submission dated 14.02.2003 and explained that the respondent No.3 consumer was liable to pay the amount towards stopped meter assessment as the consumption was not recorded for a long period. The respondent No.2 partly decided in favour of the petitioner by holding that the average consumption of the consumer was 1714 units per month but assessment cannot be made for more than six months under Section 26(6) of the Act and, therefore, revised bill for a period of six months @ 1714 units per month may be issued.
6. The respondent No.3 being aggrieved by the said order of the Electrical Inspector, approached the State Government by way of Appeal. The State Government buy its order dated 29.05.2003 has allowed the said Appeal of the Consumer and quashed and set aside the stopped meter assessment bill for the period from 12.05.2000 to 26.04.2002.
7. It is these two orders which are under challenge in the present petition.
8. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Condition No.14(b) of the Statutory Conditions of supply of the petitioner licensee made under Section 21(2) of the Act with prior sanction of the State Government, such conditions are statutory as well as contractual and they are binding to the consumer. The case of stop meter does not fall within the scope and parameters of Section 26(6) of the Act which is pertaining to a dispute of correctness of meter. He has further submitted that the issue of stopped meter has nothing to do with the correctness of meter and, therefore, neither the Electrical Inspector has jurisdiction to decide the said matter under Section 26 (6) of the Act nor the the State Government has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 36(2) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside
9. Mr. Pujara in support of his submission has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Gitar Laborators vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited, as reported in (2001) 42 (2) GLR page 1478 wherein it is held that when the meter is stopped, then it was also the duty of the consumer to bring this fact to the notice of the company. That has also not been done. The petitioner should have exhibited itself to be an honest consumer and all these facts should have been brought to the notice of the company. The petitioner enjoyed the electricity for a long period during which the meter was stopped. It is difficult to accept nor it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not knowing about the fact that the meter was not stopped functioning. It is further held that subsection (6) of Section 26 of the Act in unambiguous terms provide right to either party to apply to the Electrical Inspector in the case which falls under that provision. The case does not fall, and hence there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction by the Electrical Inspector. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No. 328 of 1990 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench has dismissed the said Appeal on 04th of September, 2009, holding that there was no infirmity in the findings of the learned Single Judge with respect to merits of the petition and it was in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
10. The provision which is applicable to this case is Condition No.14(b) of the Conditions of Supply, which is statutory in nature. It is further held that it is not a case of defective meter. If it is the case of the consumer that meter was defective, then he should have taken up the matter to the Electrical Inspector. Since it is not a case of defective meter, provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act would not be applicable, but condition 14(b) of the Conditions of Supply would be applicable and, therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition.
11. Mr. Pujara, therefore, submitted that the petition should be allowed and the respondent No.3 must be directed to pay the amount as per the Supplementary Bill raised by the petitioner.
12. This petition was strongly opposed by respondent No.3 by filing a detailed affidavitinreply. Mr. U.A. Trivedi, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner has never raised this dispute either before the Electrical Inspector or before the State Government and question of jurisdiction was never raised. Once having surrendered to the jurisdiction to the Electrical Inspector, it is not open for the petitioner to raise this dispute for the first time before this Court. He has submitted that proper explanation was filed by the respondent No.3 as to why no reading was recorded. He has further submitted that for about two long years, there was no checking by the petitioner nor it was communicated to the respondent No.3. He submitted that since power supply was there in the meter, there was no question of considering the said meter as stopped meter. He has further submitted that the supplementary bill was issued only after the meter was changed. He has further submitted that even the respondent No.3 has not disputed the change of the meter and only when the supplementary bill was received by the respondent No.3, the dispute was raised and on that ground the Electrical Inspector has partially granted relief and ultimately by reasoned order, the State Government has also totally quashed and set aside the supplementary bills raised by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Electrical Inspector before the State Government and, hence, there is no question of any further challenge, qua, that order.
13. Considering the affidavitin reply and the submission of the respondent No.3, Mr. Trivedi submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the record and having considered their rival submissions as well as having gone through the orders passed by both the authorities below, in light of the statutory provisions under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Court is of the view that it is a clear case of stopped meter. The notices were issued only to that effect and both the parties have proceeded on that footing. The case of stopped meter does not fall within the purview of Section 26(6) of the Act and this Court has rightly held in the case of Gitar Laboratories vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited (supra) which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 328 of 2001, decided on 04.09.2009. Even this Court had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Limited vs. Shiv Shakti Steel Rerolling Mills and Ors (Special Civil Application No. 4560 of 2003) decided on 06.04.2010, in that judgment, this Court has considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Hydro Electrical Power Supply Company Limited and Ors. vs. Union of India, as reported in AIR 2003 SC 1581, wherein it is held that when there is no dispute that the meter is defective and only dispute is the consumer’s liability to pay supplementary bill, such a dispute is not one contemplated by subsection (6) of Section 26 of the Act. Even in the case of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking vs. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd and Anr., as reported in (2005) 4 SCC 327, the court observed that where the meter is burnt or is completely nonfunctional, Section 26(6) of the Act is inapplicable because a burnt meter or a nonfunctional meter does not record any supply of energy, which virtually means “no meter”. The court has also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bewal Spinning Mills Limited and Another, 1997 (6) SCC 740, wherein it is, inter alia, held that if the dispute as to the correct status of the meter or other electrical apparatus is raised either by the licensee or by the consumer by making reference to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act, then such dispute can be determined only by the Electrical Inspector. After considering all these judgments, the Court, on facts, found that the defect was in CTPT and the Screw was loose in the TTB and hence the meter was running slow. Since all these apparatus are part and parcel of the meter, the meter can be considered to be a faulty one and hence the Electrical Inspector has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 26(6) of the Act. The present case is quite different. It falls within the ratio of Apex Court decision in the case of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking (Supra) which says that where the meter is completely nonfunctional i.e. stopped meter, Section 26(6) of the Act is inapplicable because a nonfunctional or stopped meter does not record any supply of energy, which virtually means “no meter”.
15. In the above view of the matter and the above settled legal position, the Court is of the view that the Electrical Inspector has wrongly exercised his jurisdiction and when the Electrical Inspector lacks jurisdiction, appeal filed is also contrary to the provisions of the Act and, hence, both the orders are required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly they are quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed to pay as per the Supplementary Bill raised by the Electricity Company as reduced by the amount already paid by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is directed to make the payment to the extent of unpaid outstanding amount within one month from today. If the respondent No.3 failed to make the payment within the aforesaid period, it is open for the petitioner to recover the said amount with interest as per the applicable rate.
Author Bio
