1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2407 OF 2004 Suhas Shridhar Sathe, of Pune, ) Indian Inhabitant, carrying on ) business at 418/1 Narayan Peth, ) Nandlal Co-operative Housing ) Society Limited, Pune 411 030 ) ....... Petitioner. v/s The Maharashtra State Electricity ) Distribution Company Limited, ) a Company incorporated under ) the provisions of the Companies ) Act, 1956 and having its registered) office at Prakashgad, Plot No.G-9, ) Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra(East)) Mumbai 400 051 and Pune Office ) at New Administrative Building, ) 1st Floor, Rasta Peth, Pune 411001) ......... Respondent. ----- Dr. V.V. Tulzapurkar with Mr. S.G. Karandikar for the Petitioner. 2 Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for the respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE 26TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned demands which were raised by way of Bill dated 12/08/2003, Bill dated Nil annexed at Exhibit- K to the Petition, Bill dated 12/12/2003 and the Bill dated 14/02/2004. 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under :- 3. Petitioner is carrying on business in the name and style of Sathe Gadhi Karkhana at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Petition. The grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of the electricity bills issued by the respondent in respect of supply of electricity at the petitioner's shop at 418/1 Narayan Peth, Pune. Respondent, prior to October, 3 2000 was supplying electricity in respect of the electric meter bearing No.6000002247 (hereinafter referred to as the "old meter") This old meter stood in the name of the Petitioner's father Shridhar Ramchandra Sathe and, in October, 2000, the name of the petitioner's father was deleted and the meter, thereafter, stood in the name of the petitioner and the new meter was installed bearing No.6000003852. The old meter was cancelled when the new meter was installed. An additional load was also provided to the new meter. The bills were submitted by the respondent to the petitioner thereafter were fully paid. In or about July, 2003 the Petitioner realized that the bills which were sent by the respondent to the petitioner were in respect of the meter which was not in Petitioner's name and the bills bore the number of the old meter. The Petitioner, therefore, informed this fact by letter dated 30/07/2003 to the Executive Engineer of the respondent. 4. Thereafter, the Petitioner received bill dated 12/08/2003 for the period from 30/05/2003 to 29/07/2003 and in this bill, the number of the new meter was mentioned and it was 4 stated that the Petitioner was in arrears to the tune of Rs 2,53,450/- . The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent dated 23/08/2003 and disputed his liability to pay the said bill. The Petitioner also requested the Electrical Inspector to adjudicate upon the dispute and give decision. Thereafter, again, a letter was sent by the Petitioner dated 23/09/2003, requesting the respondent to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner. Thereafter, several reminders were sent by the Petitioner. However, no reply was given by the respondent. Thereafter, other disputed bills were received by the Petitioner. Since no personal hearing was given to the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the respondent was not entitled to send bills for 34 months at one time which was done by the respondent by bill dated 12/08/2003. It is submitted that the respondent was under an obligation to check reading of the meter and, thereafter, make a demand. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the order passed by the 5 Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 23/02/2005 in Case No.19 of 2004 in which a direction was given to withdraw the supplementary/amendment bills issued by the respondent. 6. The respondent filed its reply and it was stated in the reply that after the old meter was replaced by the new meter, the replacement report was not properly fed into the computer and, therefore, the bills showed the old consumption under older meter number. It is stated that the said discrepancy had arisen as a result of a human error. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that since the computer showed the old meter, the calculation was made by the computer on the basis of the old meter and, therefore, the said mistake was corrected in August, 2003. 7. It is an admitted position that the old meter was replaced by the new meter and that till July, 2003, the Petitioner was sent bills which disclosed the old electric meter number. It is, however, not disputed that the 6 consumption of the electricity which was shown was either incorrect or was shown on the basis of average consumption as per the older meter. In fact, in the affidavit- in-reply, in para 5, it is admitted that the number of the old electric meter was shown. However, it is not disputed that the consumption which was fed in the computer was erroneous. It is further admitted that the Petitioner had been paying electricity bills which were received by him which showed the old electric meter number. It is not the case of the respondent that the respondent had checked the meter reading of the new meter and had noticed that the consumption was incorrect. The respondent also admitted in its affidavit that there was an error committed by one of its Officers in feeding the replacement report to the computer and that the Petitioner had brought this fact to the notice of the respondent and, thereafter, supplementary bill was issued in August, 2003, claiming an additional amount on the basis of 34 bills which were consolidated in the supplementary bill dated 12th August, 2003. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission by its order dated 23/02/2005 in Case No.19 of 2004 in respect of 7 supplementary/amendment bills had directed in para 46 of its order as under:- "46. After considering all these factors and the submissions made, the Commission directs that the supplementary/amendment bills issued in the circumstances set out at para 42 and 43 above from 10th June, 2003 (the date of coming into force of EA, 2003) and upto notification of the Supply Code- (a) should be withdrawn, if due meter testing has not been done with the results intimated to the consumer; (b) any amounts collected should be refunded to the concerned consumers (without interest considering the earlier lack of clarity on this matter on the part of the licensees); (c) where meters have been found to be defective upon subsequent due testing (and the results intimated to the consumer), the bills may be adjusted for upto 3 months prior to the 8 date of testing or meter replacement, whichever is earlier, and any amounts recovered in excess refunded without interest (in the case of 'stopped' meters, the analogy of the Supply Code provisions should be applied for assessment); (d) the above action should be completed by 30th May, 2005 so as to give the licensees more than 3 months' time in view of the work likely to be involved; (e) compliance should be submitted on affidavit by 15th June, 2005, with a list of consumers involved, and certifying that no further action remains to be done in terms of this Order." It is not in dispute that the said order has become final and is binding on the respondent. In the present case also, supplementary bill has been issued in respect of 34 monthly bills. It is an admitted position that this supplementary bill is not based on the meter reading and the method and manner 9 in which the bill is calculated has not been stated in the reply. It is also an admitted position that, in this case, no allegation of theft of electricity or defect in the meter has been alleged by the respondent. As per the own admission of the respondent in its affidavit- in-reply, it has stated that an error had occurred due to mistake on the part of their Officer in feeding the computer. In our view, directions given by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission are binding on the respondent, which had specifically directed that the supplementary/amendment bills should not be issued on the basis other than the actual meter reading for the relevant period. In the affidavit- in-reply, it has been specifically mentioned that the consumption which was shown in the earlier bills upto June 2003 was not incorrect. It is stated by the Deputy Executive Engineer in para 5 of his affidavit as under:- "5. With reference to para 4(e) to 4(g) of the petition, I state and submit that the replacement report is not properly feeded to the computer and, therefore, the computer started showing the old 10 consumption and billing was made on the said basis. I state that after replacement report tariff connected loan and revenue change was properly feeded to the computer. However, the meter number remained to be feeded. Hence, the bill shows old meter number and the consumption. I state and submit that the same is a human error." Under the circumstances, therefore, in our view, the respondent was not justified in sending the bill dated 12th August, 2003 which had consolidated the bills of 34 months and the subsequent other bills. The impugned demand notices are liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The amount of Rs 1,60,000/- deposited by the Petitioner with the respondent as per the order of this Court dated 15th July, 2005 shall be returned to the Petitioner. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) 11 (V.M. KANADE, J.)