HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 15684 of 2002 DATE: 01-02-2008 Between: Purandas Ranchhoddas & sons, ……………… Petitioner and 1. The Chief Engineer/appellate Authority, Metropolitan Zone, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and another. ………….. Respondents HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.15684 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order passed by the first respondent, dated 25-09-2001 confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 21-01-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and consequently to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.50,791-40 ps to the petitioner with interest. 2. The petitioner is availing category-III service to his firm. The respondents are issuing bills from time to time and he is paying the consumption charges regularly. In March, 1994, there was a wrong reading of the meter and on the request of the petitioner, the meter was thoroughly inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer and Distribution Staff and they have furnished the revised correct reading to the Accounts Officer, Revenue Circle for revision of the bill and accordingly, the revised bill was also paid. At that time, the officials have not pointed out the nonfunctioning of the phase properly and found the meter running in order. The Assistant Divisional Engineer inspected the premises on 20-09-1994 and made the following observations:- 1. Meter disc is rotating forward in two phases and reverse in ‘Y’ phase, and 2. Changed the secondary connection at meter terminals and checked the performance. Found three phases forward. Hence back billing is proposed. 3. In pursuance of that, a show cause notice given to the petitioner on 24-07-1995 for back billing by the second respondent and the second respondent estimated the value of average not recorded by the meter at Rs.50,791-40 ps. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner gave suitable reply. The second respondent heard the matter and passed orders on 21-01-1998 and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount. 4. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to consider the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 and passed the orders claiming the back billing amount for the period from December, 1991 to August, 1994 which is contrary to the said provisions, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of defect in the meter, Condition No.22.3.3 of the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity is applicable and as per 22.3.3.2, the respondents are at best can take the consumption charges of the preceding 12 months and the estimate shall be made on that basis, but not three years as claimed by the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the new meter was installed in 1991 and the defect was noticed in 1994, the entire period was taken for the purpose of assessing the amount and accordingly, the authorities issued the order fixing the amount as Rs.50,791-40 ps. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no record to show that the meter was not functioning properly from the date of installation and there is no definite date known as to when the meter became defective. When the period is not known, Condition No.22.3.3.2 is applicable and the respondents are not entitled to collect the charges for more than 12 months. But the respondents have calculated the amount by taking three years period. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in condition Nos.22.3.3.1 and 22.3.3.2, only the period was mentioned for the purpose of taking the average consumption since there is likelihood of variation in consumption on account of peak season and there is no prescribed period for the purpose of collecting the consumption charges. Condition Nos.22.3.3.1 and 22.3.3.2 reads as follows: “22.3.3.1. The quantity of electricity supplied during the period in which the meter ceased to function or became defective, shall be determined by taking average of the electricity supplied during the preceding three months preceding the month in which the said meter ceased to function or became defective provided that conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said three months were not different from those which prevailed during the period in which the meter ceased to function or became defective. 22.3.3.2. If the conditions in regard to use of electricity supplied during the periods as mentioned above were different, assessment shall be made on the basis of any consecutive three months during the preceding 12 months when the conditions of working were not different.” 9. After going through the relevant provisions, I am convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents and as there is no other material to show that the meter was opened at any time subsequent to the date of installation and as it was found by the concerned authorities after opening the meter that the connection was given to one phase in reverse direction, the meter did not reflect the correct consumption charges. Since there is no prescribed period for the purpose of assessing the consumption charges, I do not find sufficient force in the plea of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed by holding that the assessment made by the concerned authorities is not illegal and arbitrary. No order as to costs. ___________________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:01-02-2008 YCR