- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board And Others v. Smt Basantibai .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, proprietor of Santosh Industries, Indore, held Service Connection No. 192352 (30 H.P.) for operating an oil mill. A three-phase meter supplied and installed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (“the Board”) allegedly burned on 18-02-1983. After the respondent paid Rs 433 for the price of a replacement meter and Rs 44 as reconnection charges on 01-03-1983, the Board neither installed a new meter nor restored supply.
Instead, by letter dated 04-03-1983, the Board demanded Rs 12,346.10 under a supplementary bill dated 02-03-1983, asserting that one of the meter’s phases had been non-functional and that the original meter had under-recorded consumption. The respondent challenged the demand in Writ Petition No. 307 of 1983 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The High Court quashed both the supplementary bill and the demand letter, holding that any dispute about meter correctness must be decided by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and ordered reconnection of supply. The Board obtained special-leave and filed the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a dispute concerning the correctness of an electricity meter falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of an Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
- Whether the Electricity Board may, before such adjudication, raise a supplementary bill and threaten disconnection for non-payment.
- Whether allegations of consumer fraud in tampering with or burning the meter remove the dispute from the ambit of Section 26(6).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board)
- Asserted that the respondent had fraudulently broken the body seal and burned the meter; therefore, Section 26(6) did not apply.
- Claimed entitlement to raise a supplementary bill estimating un-recorded consumption and to disconnect supply on non-payment.
Respondent (Consumer)
- Maintained that the dispute concerned a faulty meter, not fraud, placing the matter within Section 26(6).
- Contended that, until the Electrical Inspector decided the issue, the Board lacked authority to issue a supplementary bill or disconnect supply.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gadag Betgiri, Municipal Borough, Gadag v. Electrical Inspector, AIR 1962 Mys 209 | Section 26(6) empowers the Electrical Inspector only to decide whether a meter is accurate; allegations of tampering lie outside its scope. | Relied upon to confine Section 26(6) to disputes over inherent meter correctness and exclude fraud allegations. |
| M.P. Electricity Board v. Chhaganlal Rameshwarlal Agrawal, AIR 1981 MP 170 | Defective wiring causing incorrect readings does not invoke Section 26(6) because the meter itself is not faulty. | Followed as supporting authority that only meter accuracy, not external manipulation, is covered by Section 26(6). |
| Abdul Razak v. M.P. Electricity Board, 1982 MPLJ 22 (NOC) | Held that tampering disputes also fall within Section 26(6). | Expressly disagreed with and not followed; Court preferred the Mysore and Madhya Pradesh precedents noted above. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Section 26(1) and (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Under these provisions, the quantity of energy supplied must be measured by a “correct meter,” and any dispute about whether a meter is or is not correct must be referred to the Electrical Inspector. If the Inspector finds the meter incorrect, he may estimate consumption for a period not exceeding six months.
The alleged fraud argument was rejected on factual and procedural grounds: an Assistant Engineer’s inspection report dated 17-02-1983 recorded the body seal as intact, and fraud was never alleged before the writ proceedings. Upon being confronted with the report, counsel for the Board abandoned the fraud plea.
Because the dispute centered on whether the meter’s single-phase failure rendered it “incorrect,” it squarely invoked Section 26(6). Until the Electrical Inspector decides, the statutory scheme bars the Board from unilaterally estimating consumption, issuing a supplementary bill, or threatening disconnection. Precedents from Mysore and Madhya Pradesh High Courts were cited with approval to affirm this statutory interpretation, and a contrary view in Abdul Razak was expressly disapproved.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed. The Board’s supplementary bill dated 02-03-1983 and demand letter dated 04-03-1983 remain quashed, and the Board must reconnect and restore the respondent’s electricity supply with a new meter. No order as to costs.
Implications: The judgment re-emphasises that disputes over meter accuracy fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6). Electricity Boards lack authority to raise estimated bills or disconnect supply pending such determination. Allegations of consumer fraud, if genuinely made, must be pursued separately and do not expand the Inspector’s jurisdiction.
B.C Ray, J.— This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 20-9-1984 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 307 of 1983 allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to reconnect and restore the electric supply by installing another meter.
2. The petitioner is a proprietor of Santosh Industries D-II BC Sector, Sanwar Road, Indore and she obtained service connection No. 192352 of 30 H.P load for running the oil mill. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Appellant 1, who is the licensee installed a meter with three phases for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied and consumed by the petitioner under the aforesaid service connection. On 18-2-1983 the meter was burnt and this was brought to the notice of Respondent 4, an Assistant Engineer of the zone wherein the petitioner's industry is situated. On 1-3-1983 the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs 433 as price of the meter and Rs 44 for meter connection charges.
3. The sum was deposited on the same day but no meter was installed and the electric supply connection was not restored. A letter was sent by the petitioner to Respondent 1 requesting to restore the electric supply by installation of another meter. The State Electricity Board sent a letter dated 4-3-1983 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 12,346.10 as per the supplementary bill dated 2-3-1983 sent along with said letter failing which the supply will be disconnected without notice. The basis of the supplementary bill was that the meter was not recording actual energy supplied and consumed as it was found that one phase out of the three phases was not working and the meter was running two phases only.
4. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 307 of 1983 challenging the said letter dated 4-3-1983 as well as the supplementary bill dated 2-3-1983 on the ground that the demand made on the basis of the supplementary bill was illegal.
5. A return was filed by the respondent to the effect that on 17-2-1983 the power connection was checked by an Assistant Engineer of the respondent Board and it was found that out of three phases one phase was not working. The body seal of the meter was found to be intact. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was informed that the bill should be revised due to non-working of one phase as found at the time of checking. It has also been submitted that the petitioner got the meter burnt as the meter according to respondent did not burn ordinarily. It was further alleged that body seal of the meter was broken. This tampering of the meter was alleged to have been done between 17-2-1983 to 19-2-1983 in order to avoid any liability. The respondent further alleged that the petitioner's husband refused to sign the panchnama which was prepared on the spot.
6. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the parties held that since the dispute relates to whether the meter is or is not correct it has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and so long the said dispute is not decided, Respondent 1, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was not competent to prepare the supplementary bill or revised bill as the said power is entrusted to the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910). It has been further held that the alleged notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of supplementary bill before seeking reconnection or restoration of electricity supply was also not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The letter dated 4-3-1983 issued by Respondent 1 as well as the supplementary bill of 2-3-1983 were quashed holding the same to be illegal. The question of fraud was not even intimated to the respondent consumer. It was raised for the first time in the return to the writ petition. It is an afterthought. The respondents were directed to reconnect and restore the electricity supply by installing another meter.
7. Against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed. It has been urged by Mr Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the respondent committed fraud in breaking the body seal of the meter and in burning the same and as such the dispute does not attract the provisions of Section 26(6) of the said Act. This dispute cannot be decided by the Electrical Inspector. In support of the submission our attention was drawn to the said provisions of the Act. It appears from the report of the Executive Engineer dated 17-2-1983 that the body seal of the meter was intact at the time of inspection. He only found that the meter which was installed was closed on one phase. So the contention that there was fraud in breaking the body seal of the meter cannot be sustained. Moreover, it has been found that the question of fraud was raised at no stage prior to the filing of the return in the High Court. The said story of so-called fraud was an afterthought. Mr Venugopal after seeing the report of the Assistant Engineer frankly submitted that he would not press the ground of fraud.
8. In order to decide the question whether the impugned notice dated 4-3-1983 can be issued by the appellant calling upon her to pay the amount of supplementary bill as well as whether supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board when there is a dispute relating to the question whether the meter is a correct meter or not, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 26 of the said Act. The said provisions are set out hereunder:
“26.(1) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter:
Provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter.
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity:
Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do.”
9. It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section (6) of Section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26(6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, that can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act.
10. In the instant case it appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was not working at all, so there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is a correct one or a faulty meter and this dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision will be final. It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer, as the Board is not empowered to do so by the said Act. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations made in the case of Gadag Betgiri, Municipal Borough, Gadag v. Electrical Inspector AIR 1962 Mys 209 as follows:
“What the Inspector may decide under sub-section (6) is whether or not the readings obtainable from the meter are accurate and whether the meter is faulty or mechanically defective, producing erroneous readings. That is the limited adjudication which, in my opinion, an Inspector or other authority functioning under sub-section (6) may make under its provisions....
In my opinion, the legislative intent underlying Section 26(6) of the Act is similar. The only question into which the Inspector or other authority functioning under that sub-section might investigate is, whether the meter is a false meter capable of improper use or whether it registers correctly and accurately the quantity of electrical energy passing through it. If in that sense, the meter installed by Respondent 2 in this case was a correct meter as it undoubtedly was and as it has been admitted to be, the fact that Respondent 2, even if what the petitioner states is true, so manipulated the supply lines that more energy than what was consumed by the petitioner was allowed to pass through the meter, would not render the meter which was otherwise correct, an incorrect meter.”
11. This decision was followed in M.P Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Chhaganlal AIR 1981 MP 170, 1981 MPLJ 417 where it has been observed:
“Where an electric meter is not registering correct consumption of energy not because there is any defect in the meter but because the wiring is defective Section 26(6) will not be attracted and the meter not being defective the question of arbitration by Electrical Inspector will also not arise.”
12. A contrary view was however taken in the case of Abdul Razak v. M.P Electricity Board 1982 MPLJ 22 (NOC) where it has been held that:
“... about the fittings on the meter and tampering them in such a manner that the reading of the energy would not be correct, such a dispute in view of the language of Section 26(6) read with Rule 3 of Schedule VI of the Electricity Act squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector.”
13. We are, however, unable to accept this contrary view as it is obvious from the provisions of Section 26 sub-section (6) of the said Act that the dispute whether a meter is correct or faulty would come under the said provisions and not the dispute regarding tampering of meter. In our view, the view taken about the scope of Section 26(6) in the decisions cited above are correct. In the instant case the dispute relates to whether the meter is a correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil mill of the respondent. So this dispute squarely falls within the provisions of the said Act and as such it has been rightly found by the High Court that it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. Appellant 1 is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The Board is also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy. For the reasons aforesaid we affirm the order of High Court and dismiss the appeal without costs.
Alert