W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10272/2006 Date of decision: 3rd March, 2010. DR.ABDUL KHALIQUE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. M. Taiyab Khan, Advocate. versus MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT & POWER .... Respondent Through Mr. Ramesh Pd. Yadav, Advocate for BSES. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 1. The electricity connection in question is installed in a Nursing Home at Yamuna Vihar Shahdara, Delhi. Electricity bills as per the actual consumption were raised and paid by the petitioner up to October, 2004. Thereafter, the respondent, discom raised provisional bills without taking actual meter reading, though this is contrary to Regulation 21 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations. The petitioner made payment of the provisional bills amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- as raised by the respondent, discom for the period October, 2004 till 31st March, 2006. 2. The petitioner in May, 2006 received a bill of Rs. 80,80,576.72/- towards electricity consumption. The said bill was subsequently revised W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 2 to Rs. 6,76,200.29/- vide bill dated 31st May, 2006. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has challenged the said bill. 3. The respondent, discom in their counter affidavit have admitted that incorrect bill for Rs. 80,80,576.72/- was raised. It is stated that this was on account of the fact that the meter had recorded very high and unusual consumption of 13,92,617 units as on 1st May, 2006. Thus, the respondent, discom have admitted that the meter was defective and, therefore, had recorded very high and unusual consumption of electricity. The contention of the respondent, discom is that the meter was not faulty up to 1st April, 2006 as the same was recording normal actual consumption till the said date. It is stated that on the basis of meter readings up to 1st April, 2006, the respondent, discom has raised a bill for Rs. 6,76,200.29/- for consumption of 78196 units from 11th September, 2004 to 8th August, 2005. It is stated that during this period the meter had recorded consumption of about 7100 units per month and the provisional bills were raised @ 2000 units per month, therefore, the demand of Rs. 6,76,200.29/- is correct and justified. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the meter was defective throughout the said period and even before 1st April, 2006. 5. On 13th September, 2005, the petitioner had made a W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 3 representation to the respondent, discom stating that the meter was defective and should be replaced as it was recording very high consumption. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the meter testing report dated 19th October, 2005. As per the said report, the meter was faulty. Thus, the respondent themselves on the basis of the report, came to the conclusion that the meter was faulty as on 19th October, 2005. Once a meter is found to be defective, the respondent, discom are duty bound to carry out assessment and raise bills in terms of the Regulation 21 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations for the past period as specified. The respondent, discom has failed to calculate the payment due and payable in terms of the said regulation. Full play and effect to the regulation has to be given. After the new meter was installed on 22nd May, 2006, the consumption of the petitioner has been between 2500 units to 786 units per month. Average consumption has been less than 1500 units per month. Therefore, the bill raised by the respondent, discom on the basis that the petitioner was consuming 7100 units per month as per the installed meter is clearly wrong. The meter was defective as accepted in the inspection report. The respondent, discom has also failed to download and examine CMRI data. The impugned bill W.P.(C) No.10272/2008 Page 4 is accordingly quashed. However, it is left open to the respondent, discom to calculate the user charges in terms of the Regulation 21 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations after giving notice and hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- pursuant to inter order passed by the Court. Credit of the said amount will be given to the petitioner. In case, an adverse order is passed by the respondent, discom, the petitioner is at liberty to redress his grievance in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 03, 2010 NA