IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 12, 2008 Punjab State Electricity Board ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition is directed against order dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Patiala, under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and order dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, upholding the view taken by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Patiala. The Chief Electrical Inspector, Patiala, while exercising C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2008 the power under Section 26(6) of the Act, has concluded as under:- “1. The revised bill demand of Rs. 7,73,983/- was raised for the period from 09/01 to 04/02 i.e. for the period of 8 months, as per revised bill statement no. 31 of R/PSEB and in which the reasons of raising revised demand of Rs. 7,73,983/- have not been mentioned. 2. The demand of Rs. 18,16,501/- was again revised/raised for the period from 11/2K to 04/02 i.e. for the period of 18 months due to non-contribution of yellow phase PT of CT/PT unit, as is evident from the revised bill statement no. 101 of R/PSEB. Out of total demand of Rs. 18,16,501/-, the demand of Rs. 7,73,983 already raised was deducted and balance amount of Rs. 10,42,518/- for the period from 11/2K to 04/02 have been calculated/raised to be payable by P/Consumer. 3. The sanctioned/contract load has not been mentioned in the petition by P/Consumer. 4. No where it has been pleaded by R/PSEB that it is a case of theft of energy and that Chief Electrical Inspector lacks its jurisdiction to decide the present dispute. 5. The replacement report of defective/damaged CT/PT unit has not been put up by R/PSEB. 6. Reason of change of revised bill demand from Rs. 7,73,983/- to Rs. 18,16,501/- and of its period of overhauling of account have not been given R/PSEB. 2 C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2008 The basis of average assessed as 49072 units consumption per month from 11/2K to 4/02 has not been explained by R/PSEB. 7. Data of KWH Unit, KVAH & MDI recorded during the disputed period and two years prior to and two years after disputed period has not been put up by P/Consumer in support of its petition. 8. The concerned SDO Sh. Kulwant Singh appeared before this court and he also even could not justify the demand. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the R/PSEB can raise demand for consumption of electricity for the period not exceeding 6 months as stipulated u/s 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act 1910 i.e. for the period from 11/01 to 4/02. The demand of Rs. 18,16,501 raised by R/PSEB being illegal, is hereby quashed.” The aforementioned order was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. The appellate authority upholding the view taken by the Chief Electrical Inspector has held that the serviceability of the electric meter is the responsibility of the Board and under Section 26(6) of the Act, the Board has not been empowered to impose penalty beyond a period of six months. Before us it is conceded position that the Chief Electrical Inspector has jurisdiction over the matter because there was no 3 C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2008 allegation with regard to theft of energy and the period of demand is covered by the Act, which was in operation. The aforementioned factual position has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Board-petitioner. Mr. Kapil Kakkar, learned counsel has raised only one argument while assailing the orders passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector as well as the appellate authority, namely, that the electricity connection is not in the name of Shri Kashmir Chand, which was originally given to Shri Harbhajan Singh. According to learned counsel it was Shri Harbhajan Singh who has been paying the electricity charges, as is evident from Receipt No. 188 (P-1). Learned counsel has maintained that Kashmir Chand would not become consumer till he purchased the Mill in the year 2007 and got the name changed. Therefore, he did not have any locus standi to file any application before the Chief Electrical Inspector. After hearing learned counsel, we are of the considered view that once the jurisdiction of the Chief Electrical Inspector has been conceded then there is no room to doubt that the petitioner- Board could not have made recovery for a period beyond six months as provided by Section 26(6) of the Act. The question of locus standi, which is sought to be raised before us, has never been raised before either of the authorities below. Even otherwise, the definition of expression ‘consumer’ occurring in Section 2(c) of the Act would include any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purposes of receiving energy with the works of the supplier of electricity. It is further evident that recovery could be made from any 4 C.W.P. No. 3617 of 2008 such person under Section 54 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-Board. The writ petition is wholly without merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) March 12, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5