C.W.P. No.22378 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.22378 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.12.2010 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) ……Petitioner Versus M/s Harisar Rice Mills and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioner-Board has challenged the order of the Ombudsman, Electricity Punjab, Chandigarh. Shorn of the techno speak, there was a dispute regarding running of the electricity meter of the private respondent. The petitioner-Board sought to charge the private respondent for the amount of energy actually consumed (rather than the amount of energy which was shown in the offending meter). Ultimately the C.W.P. No.22378 of 2010 -2- private respondent was sent an enhanced bill after calculating the average monthly consumption @ 55680 units per month. The demand was challenged before the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee which upheld the demand. The private respondent challenged the same again before the Consumer Forum of the petitioner-Board which set aside the demand and directed the petitioner to rework the same. Even after reworking the same the original demand was reiterated alongwith interest. This revised demand was challenged by the private respondent before the respondent No.3 – The Ombudsman who has passed the impugned order modifying the demand and granting some relief to the private respondent. This has been primarily done by disputing the basis of 55680 units, average monthly consumption, which had been calculated by the petitioner-Board and directing the petitioner-Board to compute the demand on the basis that the average monthly consumption was 42880 units. Learned Counsel has strenuously urged that computation done by respondent No.3 is not as per Electricity Supply Regulation (“ESR”) 70.6.5 of the Punjab State Electricity Board now PSPCL which is as under:- “If percentage of error of the meter is more that +/- 20%, the meter shall be declared erratic. For overhauling the accounts, the monthly consumption recorded during the period of overhauling, shall be subjected to +/- 20% error factor and compared with the C.W.P. No.22378 of 2010 -3- consumption as worked out for a dead stop meter i.e. average consumption of the last 3 or 6 months or average of the consumption of corresponding months of the previous year whichever is higher and higher of the two taken for the purpose of overhauling provided there has been no change in the connected load/contract demand during the period. In case there has been change in connected load/contract demand, the chargeable consumption worked out above shall be enhanced/reduced proportionately.” Regulation 23 of the Conditions of Supply is as under:- “CTs And PTs of Metering Equipment: Where the accuracy of meter is not involved and it is a case of incorrect connections or defective CT’s and PT’s, genuine calculation mistakes etc., charges will be adjusted in favour of Board/Consumer, as the case may be, for the period the mistake/defect continued. Additional charges will be recovered by serving a supplementary bill cum show cause notice. The consumer may also be allowed to pay the amount in installments.” The Electricity Supply Regulation (“ESR”) 73.1.4 of PSPCL is as under:- “Where consumption of previous three/six months in case of industry is not available, adhoc consumption on the basis of load C.W.P. No.22378 of 2010 -4- factor and demand factor of the industry, as calculated by the CE(Commi) from time to time, shall be worked out and shall be provisionally billed and after installation of correct meter, the consumer’s account for the previous period shall be overhauled on the basis of average consumption/power factor/ maximum demand actually recorded during the next three working months.” I find that The Ombudsman has considered all these arguments. This is primarily a case where this Court is being asked to enter into the thicket of technicality and trying to rework the calculations made by the Ombudsman. It is not a case where the petitioner has not been heard. Despite lengthy arguments, learned Counsel has not been able to persuade me that the order dated 20.08.2010 suffers from any apparent arbitrariness or palpable adversity. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 16, 2010 JUDGE ashish