IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12141 of 2002 M/S BHAGESHWARI JUTE MILLS PVT.LTD.,NH-31, BYEPASS ROAD, GULABGAGH, PURNEA APPEARING THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI MUKESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI SIYA RAM JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF GULABBAGH, P.S. PURNEA SADAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT- .PURNEA. Versus 1.BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT,PATNA. 2. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PURNEA ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PURNEA. 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MRT DIVISION, PURNEA ELECTRIC CIRCLE, PURNEA. 4. ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, PURNEA RURAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION,PURNEA. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.S.S.Rekhi, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. V.K.Singh, Advocate 5 18.2.2010 The petitioner prays for quashing the statement of account submitted by respondent no.2 vide his letter No.1076 dated 26.8.2002 contained in Annexure-1 illegally claiming a sum of Rs.13,38,629.36, as being in violation of order dated 10.8.2002 passed by the Electric Inspector, Bihar, Patna which was affirmed in appeal by the Advisory Board. The petitioner complained to the respondent that the petitioner is a private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing of Jute threads in the out skirt of Purnea Town. The petitioner complained to the respondent Board that the meter installed in its factory premises is defective as the same was recording abnormally high energy. The petitioner requested the Board repeatedly for testing of this meter. The meter was tested in Meter Testing Laboratory in presence of a representative of the Electric Inspector and the 2 Board, Respondent no.1, promptly changed the meter with a new one in the factory premises of the petitioner on about 24.2.2000. The petitioner again made a grievance that this meter was too running abnormally high. The meter installed in petitioner’s premises with two check meters was tested between 9.8.2000 and 19.8.2000 which shows that KWH, KVAH and KVA were being recorded 114%, 102.6% and 94.4% fast. In substance, the authorities observed that the meter was recording almost double of the consumption. The petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to revise the aforesaid bill in accordance with law but no heed was paid thereon. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.12877 of 2001 for redressal of his grievance. The writ application was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2001 with direction to refer the matter to the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, who would be obliged to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner, taking into consideration the readings recorded in the Check meter and the reports submitted by the office of the State Electricity Board. Further more after giving proper opportunity to both the parties and hearing them, the electric Inspector will decide the matter finally. This Court further observed that the petitioner would pay only 50% of the bill for the time being. The Electric Inspector after hearing the parties found that the meter of the petitioner was running faster by more than 3 100%. As such he directed that the bill should be revised accordingly. The Electric Inspector further observed that no interest should be charged on delayed payment vide order dated 9.8.2002. The respondent filed an appeal being Appeal No.2/03 against the order dated 9.8.2002, passed by the Electric Inspector in Electric Dispute No.10/02 before the Advisory Board under section 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Act,1910. The Advisory Board found that the appeal was time barred. The Advisory Board further observed that as the installed meter was found to be faulty, the earlier bill ought to have been considered. The Electric Inspector had directed to prepare a revised bill holding the previous bill to be void, as in such circumstances surcharge cannot be imposed on delayed payment. The petitioner states that he had paid the dues as directed earlier by the Electric Inspector which order was affirmed in the appeal. Further more this Court in case of Gaya Saw Mill 2002 PLJR 356 observed that the respondents cannot charge bill as per faulty meter. The Electric Inspector finding the meter to be faulty passed consequential order that no D.P.S. could be charged. The aforesaid order was not interfered with by the Advisory Board. The Electricity Board did not move any higher authority against the order. However the Board again ignoring the decision under section 26 (2) of Indian Electricity 4 Act, 1910 as well as Advisory Board in Appeal no.2/2003. The bill should be raised in accordance with the aforesaid orders and the matter is accordingly remitted. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise the other grievances regarding modification factor before appropriate authority first. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. AnilKr.Sinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)