1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2320 OF 2008 Kokan Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Petitioners V/s. Brihan Mumbai Electrical Supply & Transport Undertaking & Anr. ...Respondents .......... Mrs.A.R.Lambay i/b Lambay & Co. for Petitioners. Mr.Harinder Toor with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M.V.Kini & Co. for Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- June 10, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In context of query made by this Court on May 6, 2009, the Respondent on instructions has now relied on the fact appearing from the record that meter consumption of meter No.N890305 was not done nor the billing in respect of that meter was processed as it was deleted from the master tape due to some administrative error. However, that mistake was realised on inspection done on 13th February 2004 and subsequent inspection on 6th March 2004 including on 27th September 2005. It was 2 noticed that meter was functioning for all this period. The last meter reading noted was 409126 as on 27th September 2005. It is on that basis, the Respondents generated bill for 150237 units being the difference between the latest meter reading done on 27th September 2005 (409126) and the earliest reading which appeared in November 1999 (258889). 3. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the approach of of the Authority in raising bill for Petitioners having consumed 150237 units between November 1999 and September 2005. The argument of the Petitioners that this demand is barred by limitation is answered by the decision of our High Court in the case of BMC vs. Yatish Sharma & Ors. in Writ Petition No.264 of 2006 decided on 18th January 2007. The Authority has referred to the said decision and reproduced the relevant para of the decision in extenso in Paragraph 20 of its order. No fault can be found with the said view taken by the Authority. 4. Counsel for the Respondent has also relied on the decision of Jharkhand High Court reported in AIR 2008 Jharkhand 99 in the case of M/s.Tata Steel Ltd. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors. which has taken the same view. 5. Counsel for the Petitioners would then contend that in terms of regulation 15.4.1, 3 the Authority could have raised bill only for maximum period of three months based on average metered consumption for twelve months immediately preceding the three months prior to the month in which the billing is contemplated. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on the same decision of our High Court dated 18th January 2007. However, what is overlooked by the Petitioners is that the said regulation will apply in a case where the meter is defective meter and it is found that the meter had stopped recording electricity consumption. In other words, regulation 15.4.1 pressed into service has no application to the facts of the present case. No other contention has been raised before me. Hence, this Petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)