Allowed

M/S Sandhu Rice Mills Thr'H Lessee M/S Sars etc. v. Sub Division Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Authority

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2014CWP/15766/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking to quash notices and an order regarding electricity bills based on a faulty meter. The Single Judge applied a precedent holding that it is the Board's duty to check meter serviceability, not the consumer's. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to reimburse the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Set aside notice dated 03.01.2008, letter dated 14.02.2008, and order dated 21.08.2008. Direct respondents to reimburse Rs.67,697/- deposited by the petitioner.

M/S Sandhu Rice Mills Thr'H Lessee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 15766 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 15766 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.03.2014

¶5

M/s Sandhu Rice Mill

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Sub Divn. Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Patiala and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. G.S. Lalli, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition under Article 226/227 of the

¶16

Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 21.08.2008 (P-9) passed by respondent No. 1 and letter dated 14.02.2008 (P-7) and bill dated 08.02.2008 (P-6) and notices dated 03.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 regarding meter No. P25MS250040-L of the petitioner-Mill.

¶17

The electric meter bearing No. MS25/0040 was installed in

¶18

the premises of the Sandhu Rice Mills by the PSEB (Now PSPCL). The petitioner had been making the payment of bills as per P-1/A to P-1/E.

¶19

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP No. 15766 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

However, on 20.12.2007, the officials of respondent-Corporation checked meter and recorded that there was no complaint in the functioning of meter and as such, the respondent-Corporation issued electricity bill dated 10.01.2008 (P-1/E). Thereafter on 03.01.2008, the

¶23

meter was again checked by the officials of respondent-Corporation vide P-2 and it was observed that the meter was running slow by 31.8%. Thereafter, a notice dated 03.01.2008 was issued to the petitioner for final order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity u/s 126 of the Electricity Act. The Corporation sought Rs.53407/- from the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply dated 15.01.2008 in response to the above said notice (P-4). Thereafter, on 18.01.2008, the meter was again checked by the Corporation vide P-5 and as per report, the seal of the meter was intact. In the report, it was stated that meter is dead and recommended for replacing meter. Subsequently, the meter was replaced on 23.01.2008 and the old meter was sent to ME lab. The respondent-Corporation sent electricity bill dated 8.2.2008 (P-6) of Rs.1,19,315/- including the sundry charges of Rs.53407/-. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation issued another letter dated 14.2.2008 (P-7) clarifying that Rs.53407/- has been added to bill and remaining Rs.14,290/- be deposited in cash. The petitioner challenged the above

¶24

said letter dated 14.2.2008, electricity bill dated 8.2.2008 and notice

¶25

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP No. 15766 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

dated 3.1.2008 and 18.1.2008 by filing appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act before respondent No. 1. However, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 21.08.2008 (P-9) by passing non-speaking order. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶29

On notice, a reply has been filed on 26.04.2011 on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 wherein it is admitted that after doing checking on 18.01.2008, it was found that one phase of meter was dead and the meter was replaced with a new meter and the old meter was sent to M.E. Lab and the report dated 08.05.2012 of the M.E. Lab has been placed on record (R-1) in the reply dated 05.10.2012 filed by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court today. As per report (R-1), one phase of the meter was dead and there is no opinion regard the tempering of the meter.

¶30

Reference at this stage can be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in a case of P.S.E.B and another vs. Commissioner Appeals, Patiala Divn, Patiala and others, 2009(2) R.C.R (Crl) 640, wherein the old meter was replaced and was sent to M.E. Lab and as per report of M.E. Lab, the meter was found to be running slow by 16.82 per cent. On this report, a demand of Rs.2,23,550/- was raised by the Corporation. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 04.10.2007 has observed that it is the

¶31

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CWP No. 15766 of 2010 (O&M)

¶33

-4-

¶34

duty of the petitioner-Board to check the serviceability of the meter and not of the consumer and thus, the consumer cannot be penalized to any act or ommission of the Board.

¶35

In the present case also, on 03.01.2008, the meter was again

¶36

checked by the officials of respondent-Corporation vide P-2 and it was observed that the meter was running slow by 31.8%. Thereafter, the meter of the petitioner was replaced with a new meter and it was sent for M.E. Lab and as per report dated 08.05.2012 of the M.E. Lab, one

¶37

phase of the meter was dead and there is no opinion regard the tempering of the meter.

¶38

In view of the above factual position and applying the ratio

¶39

of law laid down in P.S.E.B's case (supra), the notice dated 03.01.2008 (P-3), letter dated 14.02.2008 (P-7) and order dated 21.08.2008 (P-9) are set aside.

¶40

The writ petition is allowed

¶41

The respondents are directed to reimburse/adjust the

¶42

amount i.e Rs.67,697/- deposited by the petitioner.

¶43

( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶44

04.03.2014

¶45

G Arora

¶46

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Sandhu Rice Mills Thr'H Lessee M/S Sars etc. v. Sub Division Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sandhu Rice Mills Thr'H Lessee M/S Sars etc. v. Sub Division Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachna Ram and Ors. Vs Stof Hryana and Ors.

(O&M) Mc Adampur Vs Commissioner Hisar Divn.Etc.

Paramjit Singh Ranu Vs State of Pb.Etc.

(O&M) Brij Lal & Ors. Vs Fci & Ors.

Harkishan Memorial Public School Vs the Transport Commissioner

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.