IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 2293 of 2007. Reserved on: 21.08.2008. Decided on: 4.9.2008. _______________________________________________________ The Secretary, H.P.S.E.B and another. … Petitioners. Versus M/s Saboo Cylinders Ltd. and another. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the energy meter with multiplying factor 1200 was installed in the premises of respondent No.1 on 27.12.1996. It was checked by the Executive Engineer Flying Squad in the month of April, 1997. It was recording 27% less energy. The petitioner-Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board for convenience sake, raised bill for 27% unmetered energy w.e.f. 27.1.1997 to 27.3.1998. The arrears were paid by the consumer. In the month of April 1998, the Board worked out the slowness to 33.3% and accordingly, multiplying factor was increased from 1200 plus 27% slowness to 1800. The Board calculated the arrears amounting Rs. 3,37,925.70 paise. The Assistant Engineer, Kala Amb vide letter dated 1.5.1999 raised the demand. The Board, in the month of May 1999, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 installed a check meter in series with the disputed meter in the premises of the Consumer w.e.f. May 1999 to April 2001. The slowness of the meter was recorded as per comparison made with the existing meter and it was found to be less than 27%. The Additional Superintending Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer had also re-iterated that there was no loss to the H.P. State Electricity Board as the slowness charged at the rate of 27% as pointed out by the Executive Engineer Flying Squad was correct. The consumer filed an appeal before the Chief Electrical Inspector assailing the validity of letter dated 1.5.1999. The Chief Electrical Inspector accepted the appeal on 10.11.2003. The Board was directed to withdraw the demand raised vide letter dated 1.5.1999. The Board preferred an appeal against the order dated 10.11.2003 before respondent No.2, i.e. the Secretary (MPP & Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 23.9.2006. Mr. Baldev Singh has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Secretary (MPP & Power) are not sustainable. Mr. K.S. Kanwar has supported the orders dated 10.11.2003 and 23.9.2006 respectively. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties carefully. It is not disputed by the parties that the energy meter was installed in the premises of the consumer on 27.12.1996. It was found recording 27% less energy. The consumer was directed to make the payment after recording of 27% less energy in the meter installed in the premises of the consumer. The consumer paid the arrears. It was only in the month of April 1998 that the Board worked out the slowness to 33.3% and consequently, the multiplying factor was increased from 1200 to 1800. 3 The bill was raised by the Assistant Engineer, Kala Amb vide letter dated 1.5.1999. It has come in the order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector that after the bill was raised, the Board had installed check meter in series with the disputed meter w.e.f. May 1999 to April 2001. The recordings were compared with the existing meter and it was found to be less than 27%. The Additional Superintending Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer had also re-iterated that there was no loss to the H.P. State Electricity Board since according to them, the slowness charged at the rate of 27% pointed out by the Executive Engineer Flying Squad in the month of April 1997 was correct. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The Board could not decide that the meter installed in the premises of the consumer was not recording the actual consumption. If there was any dispute whether the meter was correct or it was inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, the matter was required to be adjudicated upon by the Chief Electrical Inspector on an application made by either the consumer or the Board. It is only when the Chief Electrical Inspector comes to the conclusion that the meter is faulty and due to some defect, it has not registered the actual consumption of electricity energy, then he has to estimate the electricity consumption and the amount to be paid for the actual energy consumed. In the present case, the Flying Squad has recorded 27% slowness in the meter. The consumer paid the arrears as demanded. It was only somewhere in the year 1998 that the Board came to the conclusion that in fact the meter was recording 33.3% less energy and consequently, the multiplying factor was increased from 1200 to 1800. The Board at its own level, purportedly exercising the power under sub section (7) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, had installed the check meter in the premises of the consumer w.e.f. May 1999 to April 2001. The comparison was made, as noticed above, 4 between two meters and it was found to be less than 27%. This fact was verified by the Additional Superintending Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer as well. It was in these circumstances that the Chief Electrical Inspector had come to the right conclusion that issuance of letter dated 1.5.1999 was uncalled for whereby the consumer was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,37,925.70 paise. The findings recorded by the Chief Electrical Inspector are in conformity with law. Respondent No.2 has also by a speaking order affirmed the orders of the Chief Electrical Inspector. There is neither jurisdictional error nor any material procedural irregularity in the orders dated 10.11.2003 and 23.9.2006. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 4, 2008. (cr)