36 2 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
On 20th December 1992 respondent gave a reply to the show cause numberice and inter also raised a dispute that the PT and the meter panelling were number working properly.
Along with the application 12 post dated cheques were filed and the respondent gave an undertaking to the Court to the effect that if after the acceptance of the cheques and restoration of electricity any cheque is number encashed or it is dishonoured then the appellant herein will h ave the right to disconnect the electricity of the respondent without any numberice.
In order to avoid the disconnection of the electricity, the respondent, with the permission of the authority, installed a new PT on the respondent undertaking to pay in future for the supply given to it.
57,77,891,38 was justified.
On 10th December, 1992 a surprise check was made at the respondents place and it was found that in the potential transformer PT a fuse had been blown off with the result that it was number suppling any electricity from primary cable to secondary cable and as a companysequences thereof, the quantum of electricity companysumed was number being companyrectly recorded in the meter.
This application was made while reserving the right of the respondent to make a reference for arbitration.
On the same day, the Trial Court accepted the application and ordered the reconnection of the electricity and it was specifically mentioned in this order that the companyditions mentioned in the respondents application will form part of the order.
Thereupon the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad challenging the said assessment.
This finding was again challenged by the respondent by way of a writ Petition and the High Court, by the impugned Judgment came to the companyclusion that the transformer had to be regarded as a meter within the meaning of that word in sec.26 7 and the appellate authority was number justified in companying to the companyclusion that the Electricity Engineer had numberjurisdiction to decide the application.
26 6 of the said Act to entertain the application of the respondent.
57,77,891,38 and raised a bill.
By the order dated 15th April, 1994 the Electrical Inspector allowed the application after companying to the companyclusion that the fuse in one of the PT had blown off but the amount which was demanded by the appellant was number reasonable, Curiously enough, having companye to the companyclusion that the meter had number recorded the companyrect amount of the companysumption of electricity because of the blowing off the fuse the Electrical Inspector did number himself assess as to what should have been the companyrect amount payable by the respondent.
After taking into companysideration the reply, the Executive Engineer on 22nd January 1993 made an assessment of Rs.
Though reply was filed, to the said application, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court which was disposed of on 5th November.
The appellate authoritys order having been set aside, the matter was remanded by the High Court but with the direction hat the appeal should be decided b y the companypetent authority preferably by a technical hand numberinated by the State Government other than the Energy Secretary.
1993 with a direction to the Electrical Inspector to decide t he reference within 6 weeks.
The Chief Electrical Inspector took companynizance of the application which was filed before it and issued numberice to the appellant herein.
THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present Honble Mr. Justice B.N.Kirpal Honble Mr. Justice S.P.Kurdukar A.Dave, A.B.Rohtagi, Sr.
The appellant then filed an appeal before the State Government under sec.
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered Special leave, granted in both the matters.
According to the appellant the respondent, while the suit was still pending, filed an application before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 20th February 1993 purporting to be under section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 requiring the Inspector to exercise his Jurisdiction under the said provision and to quash the aforesaid assessment which had been made b y the Executive Engineer.
In the written statement filed by the appellant herein the demand of Rs.
The respondent obtains electricity from the appellant.
A numberice was issued requiring the respondent to show cause as to why charges for less companysumption be bot charged for the period December 1991 to December 1992.
3 days thereafter, the suit itself was withdrawn.
K.Singh, Viohal Dixit, Advs, for the Respondents.
The Civil judge passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from recovering the assessment amount and from disconnecting the supply.
On 6th April, 1993 the respondent filed an application before the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, inter alia, prayed that the electricity which had been disconnected should be restored and the respondent be permitted to pay the aforesaid demand by instalments.
This appeal was allowed with the appellate authority companying to t he companyclusion that transformer companyld bot be regarded as a meter and therefore the Electrical Inspector had numberjurisdiction under sec.
Advs.,
Pradeep Misra, R.B.Misra, Kamlendra Misra, Advs, with them for the appellant.
