IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12850 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.08.2009 Satish Kapur @ Satish Kumar Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 3.2.2006 (P7), vide which, a demand, for an amount of Rs.9,37,686/- was raised, after overhauling account of the petitioner for the use of electricity. Further challenge is to the orders dated 20.8.2008 (P8), 13.10.2008 (P9), 27.2.2009 (P10) and 25.6.2009 (P11), vide which, the impugned order Annexure P7 was upheld with a slight modification. Record shows that the petitioner is running an electric connection under MS Industrial Category, for manufacturing of plastic bags. On 2.1.2006, AEE/ technical unit No.11, City Central Division, PSEB, Ldhiana checked electric connection of the petitioner and it was intimated that the meter was running slow at the rate of 34.25%. Report was referred to the Senior XEN for further investigation, who again checked the electric Civil Writ Petition No.12850 of 2009 meter, in presence of the petitioner, who also signed the report. The Senior XEN, in his report intimated that accuracy of the meter was checked with LT ERS meter and it was found running slow at the rate 34.30% at 25.4 KW running load, at 0.99 power factor lagging. Further investigation was also carried out and it was noticed as under:- “a) Per phase working of meter checked by applying heater load and found OK b) Voltage checked at meter terminals and found in order. c) On checking the display-2, it was observed that phase association of the meter is wrong i.e. U:RYB:A:RBY. In the report, it was further recorded that connections of the meter were set right and accuracy of the meter was again checked at 27.6KW running load and at 0.98 power factor lagging the same was found within limits.” On the basis of checking reports, account of the petitioner was overhauled for the period from 11.2.2001 to 3.1.2006 i.e. from the date of installation of the meter, to the date of checking it, as mentioned above. A demand of Rs.9,37,686/- was raised. The petitioner went to the Spot Review Committee and on deposit of 10% of the amount, his case was referred to the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee (ZLDSC). That committee considered his case on 20.8.2008, by noting a fact that earlier, meter installed in premises of the petitioner was checked on 21.4.2003 and it was found working properly, the Committee maintained the demand only for the period from 21.4.2003 to 3.1.2006. Amount claimed was reduced to Rs.5,73,241/-. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12850 of 2009 The petitioner then went to the Punjab State Electricity Board, Electricity Grievances Redressal Forum, which affirmed the order passed by the ZLDSC. Before the Forum, it was contention of counsel for the petitioner that after detection of a technical snag in the meter on 3.1.2006, consumption of electricity had increased on account of increase in production, as such, on account of that the petitioner’s account could not have been overhauled. To negative that contention, the Forum observed as under:- “g) From the consumption of electricity and production/ sale of plastic bags submitted by appellant consumer, it could be seen that after setting right the phase association of merit, yearly consumption of electricity (2006- 07) increased by about 17% as compared to previous year consumption although there is decline in sale/ production by 17% (approximately) as compared to 2005-06 as detailed below:- Year Electricity Consumption Sale/ production of plastic bags 2005-06 100771 units 7908588.04 2006-07 117871 units 6549695.05 The petitioner then went to Ombudsman, Punjab State Electricity Board. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by observing as under:- “I have gone through the written submissions and documents produced by both the parties and oral arguments heard carefully. It is observed that no data has ever been downloaded from the disputed meter during any of the 3 Civil Writ Petition No.12850 of 2009 checkings done by the respondents. The SDO on 2.1.2006 and the Sr.XEN City Central (Special) Division, Ludhiana on 3.1.2006 have checked the meter with LT ERS meter. The accuracy of the meter as on 3.1.2006, therefore, is not in doubt. The contention of the appellant that the phase association of the meter was wrong due to interchanging of pressure terminals of red and blue phases at meter terminals stands refuted by CCR No.69-70/513 dated 3.1.2006 which records and reports that on checking the consumer connection with ERS meter, the meter was found running slow by 34.3% as phase association of the meter was wrong i.e. it was RBY instead of RYB which means CTs might have been wrongly connected right from the date of replacement of meter. The connections of the CTs were not checked and reported on 21.4.2003 by the SDO. The benefit of doubt has been allowed by the ZLDSC and the Grievances Redressal Forum. It is matter of record that the consumption of the appellant increased by 50% in the next immediate five to six months after the connection was set right on 3.1.2006. This leaves not iota of doubt that the meter prior to 3.1.2006 was running slow by 34.30%. The fall in consumption in subsequent period could be due to other reasons like fall in production on account of demand market fluctuations in the product manufactured by the petitioner. Allegations of personal prejudice made by the petitioner carry no merit without any documentary or circumstantial evidence and were avoidable. It is sad that the respondents failed to make any erring inefficient official 4 Civil Writ Petition No.12850 of 2009 accountable for the lapses and inefficiency for checking the meter regularly as provided in their rules and regulations. Under the facts and circumstances I find no merit in the petition that the amount of Rs.5,73,241/- has been charged wrongly and malafidely on the basis of manipulated wrong association of phases of the meter at the meter terminals. No interference is called for.” This Court feels that the orders passed are perfectly justified. Meter installed in premises of the petitioner was checked on 21.4.2003. It has come on record that on that date, CTs were not checked by the officer concerned. Thereafter, the meter was checked on 2.1.2006 by the SDO concerned and after that on report made, it was checked by the Senior XEN on 3.1.2006 with the help of electric instruments and it was found that the phase association of the meter was wrong i.e. it was RBI instead of RYB, which means CTs might have been wrongly connected right from the date of replacement of the meter. As per record, on 21.4.2003, when meter was checked earlier, CTs were not checked. Notwithstanding the above said fact, benefit of doubt was given to the petitioner by the ZLDSC and amount demanded was reduced. In view of above, this Court feels that no case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, to claim relief, has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Commissioner Appeals, Patiala Division, Patiala and ors., 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 340 (P&H) (DB). Perusal of judgment, mentioned above, indicates that facts in that case were altogether different. In that case, old meter was replaced with a new meter in a routine manner. 5 Civil Writ Petition No.12850 of 2009 Thereafter, old meter was checked in ME Laboratory and it was found running slow by 16.82%. Accordingly, account of the consumer therein, was overhauled. By taking note of a fact that the slowness of the meter may be on account of natural wear and tear, this Court set aside the demand raised against the petitioner in that case. However, in the present case, matter is altogether different. Slowness in this case was not on account of any natural wear and tear, the same had occurred due to wrong phase association of the meter. When technical snag was corrected, the electric meter started showing the correct reading for consumption of electricity. The Courts below have noticed that despite reduction in production of the plastic bags etc. there was increase in consumption of the electricity. Dismissed. 24.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 6