IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12095 of 2002 Om Narayan Sharma, Son of Late Mukti Nath Sharma, Resident of Mohalla- North Mandiri, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna-800001. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through the Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Fatuha, Patna. 2. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Division, Fatuha, Patna. 3. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue), Electric Supply Sub-Division, Didarganj, Patna. ----------- Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1. Mr. S.S. Rekhi. Mr. Viresh Kr. Singh. Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh. -------------- 08 12.08.2009 The petitioner has premises for which he had taken an electric connection as a non-domestic (commercial) connection from the Bihar State Electricity Board. The supply to petitioner’s premises was metered for the period under consideration. It is not in dispute that neither the meter was defective nor it had been tampered with at any point of time. In terms of Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, there is statutory presumption with regard to correctness of the meter in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in this regards as well. The dispute arose about wrong billing and billing without basis disclosed. Petitioner protested and ultimately came to this Court. This writ application was filed on 28.10.2002 and on 23.01.2003, this Court directed for counter affidavit to be filed by the Board in the matter. A counter affidavit was then filed on 26.06.2003. In the counter affidavit, it is disclosed for the first time that on 19.07.2000 a load inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner. Allegedly - 2 - two welding machines and drill machines apart from water pump and light load was found. Even though, in the said inspection report it is not mention that these machines were being used or found connected, load was calculated and added. Petitioner has sanctioned load of 10 KW. What was assessed was 26.71 KW. The inspection report is Annexure- A, to the counter affidavit and on that itself it is endorsed due to non- presence of the consumer the men present hesitated to sign. A perusal of this report shows three things. Firstly, the load is not specifically asserted to be either connected or in use. Secondly, the inspection report was not handed over to any person therein. Thirdly, there was no seizure of unauthorized equipments. The Petitioner has strenuously challenged this inspection report that the report is being manufactured and that too long after the said date only to substantiate illegal demand being raised without basis once the writ was filed. In the counter affidavit itself, nowhere it is stated that pursuant to the said inspection any notice or any proceeding against the petitioner was drawn up nor is it stated that the inspection report was ever communicated to the petitioner. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit there is a specific admission that this report dated 19.07.2000 was sent to the petitioner for the first time on 05.04.2003 that is almost three years after the inspection and six months after the writ application was filed, which itself was filed after two years of the alleged inspection and which was three months after the matter was adjourned by this Court for filing counter affidavit. There is no explanation why all this. In fact, if the inspection was conducted there then as contemplated under Clause 16.9 - 3 - of the Board’s Tariff as prevalent, proceeding immediately should have initiated and penalty imposed and order served on the consumer. None of which was done. What is said only is that a bill has been raised without disclosing in the said bill as to for what it is being issued. What is the basis of charge or any other particular? In the counter affidavit, again a story is sought to be built up with reference to Annexure-B, only to justify the chart (Annexure-C) furnished by the Board itself, showing no meter reading for years, that the meter reader wanted to take meter readings but the premises was not opened. Unfortunately, even this letter is Annexure-B dated 04.04.2003 that is on the same day on which the inspection report of the year 2000 is being sent. Without going into further facts, in my view, these facts itself demonstrate the inspection report is a document prepared three years later when the matter was brought to this Court. It does not inspire any confidence. It cannot be basis for any action. The bills based thereon and the demands made thereon cannot be sustained and all are accordingly quashed. The writ application is allowed with all consequential reliefs. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)