Regd. Partnership Firm Soneja Plastics Industries Shajapur vs M.P. Electricity Board Shajapur.

J.G. Chitrc, J.

Shri A.K. Shrivastava placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Basantibai Vs. M.P. Electricity Board, Indore and Others, and the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of M.P. E. B. and others v. Smt Basantibai (AIR 1988 S. C. 71). By relying on these two judgments dealing with the same a matter, Shri A.K. Shrivastava submitted that if there is dispute about non-functioning of any phases, the Electricity Board docs not have any right to disconnect the electric suppply to the consumer. He pointed out that in such a case it is for Electrical Inspector who to examine the said meter and to give proper finding. He submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Basantibai (supra), the order which is under challenge will have to be set aside by treating it as incorrect, improper and illegal, Ku. Swati Kasrekar appearing for the Electricity Board placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Harishankar v. M.P. E. B. ( 1995 (I) M.P. W. N. 247 Note 171). She submitted that the petitioner has to deposit some amount as security deposit.

It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Basantibai (supra) that the industry could not be compelled to pay supplementary bill before seeking reconnection or restoration of the electric supply, in the absence of any provision under the Electricity Act (9 of 1910). Section 26 (6) or the rules permitting preparation of supplementary bill based on calculation other than the meter reading. It was for the Board to get the dispute decided by the Electrical Inspector which alone was the course open to the Board in view of Section 26 (6). The Board could not have by itself decided that the meter installed was deceptive or not recording actual consumption because such a decision could only be given by referring the dispute to Electrical Inspector.

In the present case the impugned order shows that the learned Court below accepted that after examination by Assistant Engineer (Vigilence) it was found that one of the three phases was not working. In view of that finding, the learned Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 12, 000/- as an amount "under protest". In view of the judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Basantibai (supra) it is necessary to refer the dispute to Electireal Inspector who would be the competent authority to examine the dispute and give a correct finding over it. When one of the three phases is not in action, the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the said amount of Rs. 12,000/- under protest in respect of supplementary bill. However, he is liable to pay the undisputed amount of the electric bill so also the undisputed amount of electric bill in future for consumption of Electircity by him for his unit.

In the facts and circumstances of the case I modify the order which is under challenge direct the petitioner to furnish solvent security to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) instead of depositing Rs. 12,000/- in the office of opponent as directed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Shajapur. The dispute needs to be referred to Electrical Inspector as early as possible for the purpose of solving out the dispute in respect of payment of supplementary bill.