AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the petitioner by this writ application is that the respondents have raised the bills, as contained in Annexures-2 and 5, merely on the basis of the vigilance report, without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector, u/s 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Learned counsel appearing on be half of the petitioner submitted that the respondents have wrongly added 12.19% in the impugned bills on the ground of slow reading of the electric meter.
It is further submitted that if the meter of the petitioner was defective and in case, it was detected in course of the vigilance report, the respondent authorities could have referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector u/s 26(6) of the Act and only after receiving its report they could have raised the bills.
The facts contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board. It is well settled that the energy bills cannot be raised merely on the basis of the vigilance report in case when the meter was defective and the bill could have been raised only on the basis of the report of the Electrical Inspector under the Act.
Under the circumstances, I find merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, allowed and the part of the impugned bills by which 12.19% has been added on account of slow reading of the meter on actual consumption is hereby quashed.
The respondent authorities, how ever, shall be at liberty to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector u/s 26(6) of the Act, in case the meter of the petitioner is again found defective. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.