Allowed

M/s.Tirumala Binni Rcie Mill, v. Transmission Corporation of a.P.Ltd.

Telangana HC25 Mar 2014WP/21696/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition filed by a rice mill challenging the inclusion of back billing charges and audit objections in their electricity bill. The Court set aside the impugned notice and directed the respondents to refer the meter dispute to the Chief Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, relying on a Full Bench decision in Klaiman Porcelains.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 06.02.2001 set aside; respondents directed to refer meter dispute to Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act within four weeks.

M/s.Tirumala Binni Rcie Mill, Vs Transmission… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21696 of 2004

¶2

DATED: 25.03.2014

¶3

Between: M/s Tirumala Binni Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

And Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad & others

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21696 of 2004

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶11

2. The petitioner is a rice mill, having a L.T. Service connection bearing S.E.No.516. While so, they received Bill No.1019 dated 01.08.2004 for the month of July 2004 for a sum of Rs.67,637/-, out of which a sum of Rs.33,765/- towards consumption charges and additional consumption deposit which was payable by the petitioner. But in the total amount, an amount of Rs.20,640/- was included towards back billing for the period from June 2000 to February, 2001 on the ground of defect in the meter. A further amount of Rs.10,904/towards back billing for the period from 06.06.2000 to 06.12.2000 was also included on the ground that when the meter was tested on 06.12.2000, it showed error of 28.5% in recording the consumption. The total amount also included a sum of Rs.2,368/- towards belated payment of the above mentioned amounts. The petitioner states that the amount of Rs.20,640/- was included based on the audit objection and the amount of Rs.10,904/- was included pursuant to the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent on 06.02.2001. The said notice was not served on the petitioner at that point of time but only served on 07.10.2004. In response to it, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 29.10.2004 requesting him to waive the said amount. Challenging the inclusion of the said amount in the bill for the month of July, 2004 issued on 01.08.2004, the present writ petition was filed.

¶12

3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the amounts were already included in CC bills for the month of 03/2003. Though the assessment was made in the year 2001 itself, the present writ petition was filed on the ground that the provisional assessment notice was received by the petitioner on

¶13

07.10.2004, which was denied. The allegation that the petitioner sent representations dated 07.10.2004, 29.10.2004 and 30.10.2004 was also denied. Though it is stated in the counter that the details of the CC bills of the petitioner’s service connection were annexed to the counter, the same were not annexed to the counter or filed before this Court. The amounts alleged to have been included in the bill for the month of July 2004 were already included in the month of March, 2003 and the petitioner paid arrears of back billing amounts in the month of April 2003 and on subsequent dates. But the petitioner did not choose to pay regular CC charges.

¶14

4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that they have not received final assessment order dated 21.01.2003 and filed the copies of the representations dated 07.12.2004, 29.10.2004 and 30.10.2004. He states that the representation dated 30.10.2004 was acknowledged by the Divisional Engineer on 19.11.2004. The petitioner further states that without giving any data, under threat of disconnection, collected a sum of Rs.15,000/-.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in ‘Klaiman Porcelains vs. APSEB^[1] ’ , the assessment made by the APTRANSCO in respect of the meter dispute is contrary to Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government alone is competent to decide the meter dispute cases. He further submits that the respondents collected a sum of Rs.20,000/- and odd towards belated payment charges right from the year 2001 by including small amounts in the monthly bills and without noticing the same, the petitioner paid the amounts. The alleged final assessment proceedings dated 21.01.2003 was not served on the petitioner at all. Learned counsel further submits that neither the Act nor the Rules framed there under or the terms and conditions of the supply do provide for recovery of any amount based on the audit

¶16

objections. The respondents have not initiated any proceedings in terms of Clause 22.3.3.3 of the terms and conditions of the supply. Therefore, the demand based on the audit objection is unsustainable.

¶17

6. Learned standing counsel for the respondents did not dispute the description of the amount of Rs.20,640/- and Rs.10,904/- apart from belated payment of Rs.2368/-. It is not clear from the pleadings how much amounts were received by the respondents pursuant to the dispute relating to the meter. A single Judge of this Court in WP No.16290 of 2003 by order dated 05.08.2003 following the Full Bench decision cited supra, disposed of the dispute relating to the meter by referring the dispute to the Chief Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act.

¶18

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned notice dated 06.02.2001 issued by the 3^rd respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the Chief Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the amounts paid by the petitioner till today, shall abide by the decision of the said Chief Electrical Inspector. So far as the amounts received from the petitioner towards audit objection is concerned, the same will also be subject to the decision of the said Chief Electrical Inspector. Upon finalisation of which, a statement of amounts received from the petitioner apart from the consumption charges and additional consumption deposit, shall be intimated to the petitioner and a separate demand notice, if any, shall be issued to the petitioner, if amount is due from the petitioner or if the respondents have to refund the amount, they have to adjust the same in the future bills. But however, the petitioner shall continue to pay the regular consumption charges.

¶19

8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending

¶20

miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶21

_________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶22

Date: 25.03.2014 BSS

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 1

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.21696 of 2004