LexSURESH JINDAL versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l SURESH JINDAL A v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS. OCTOBER 11, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] B Indian Electricity Act, 191 O; Ss. 35 and 26/Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000; Ss. 14, 15, 61, 63 and 64/Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pe1formance and Standards-Metering and c Billing) Regulations, 2002: Electric energy recording meter-Replacement by an electronic meter by Licensee-Electric meter so replaced allegedly running faster-Challenge to-Dismissed by High Court-Letters Patent D Appeal also dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Appellant- consumer did not object to change of meter and allowed respondent- - -I Licensee to change his correct meter by another one which he admitted ·was also correct-He, later, cannot contend that the meter does not record correct consumption of electricity-A policy decision for E replacement of old electric meters with the new electronic meters issued by Electricity Regulatory Commission in terms of provisions under 1948 Act to meet the requirement of annual reserve fund-S. 20 confers i power on Licensee to alter a meter which includes replacement of a meter-There exists no power in any of the Statutes connected with F electricity supply which prohibits the Licensee to replace one meter y by another-Creative interpretation of the provisions of the Statute demands that with advancement in science and technology, the Court should read the provision of the Statute in a manner so as to give effect thereto-Hence, Licensee had necessary authority to replace the meter in terms of provision u/s. 20 of 1910 Act-General Clauses Act- G ~ Statutory power--Exercise of-Jnte1pretation of Statutes. Words & Phrases: 53 H t 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. 'r' A 'Licensee '-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(e) of the Electricity Act,, 1910. 'Board '-Meaning of in the context of Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. B A meter for the purpose of recording of consumption of electrical energy was installed at the premises of the appellant- consumer. It was replaced by an electronic meter by respondent- Licensee. The electronic meter when tested by the officials of the y respondent, it was found that the same was running fast by about c + 1. 79% which is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises was of Class-I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court praying for order/direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby declaring the acts of the officials of the respondents as illegal and malafide in replacing the D correct and working electricity meter of the petitioner by an electronic meter at his residence. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. A letters patent appeal preferred thereagainst by the consumer was also dismissed by the >- High Court. Hence the present appeal. E Appellant-consumer contended that in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, since Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being not applicable, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment; that Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, ~ 1956 whereupon reliance was placed by the respondents in their F counter affidavit is clearly inapplicable and thus reliance so placed by the High Court was wholly unwarranted; that the tariff framed y by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any jurisdiction upon the respondents to remove the correct meter and replace the same by [ another meter; that the only provision which could have been taken ) G recourse to for replacement of a meter being Section 26 of the 1910 ' Act and the same was not applicable in this case; that margin of error ~ • in the meter being 1. 79% in one case and 3. 79% in the other which ¥ ~ is in excess of 1 per cent of error provided for in the proviso appended to Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, the appellant H had a legal right to obtain a writ in the nature of mandamus directing t SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 55 the respondents not to rely thereupon for the purpose of calculating A the amount of consumption of electrical energy recorded therein; and that in any view of the matter, replacement of the meter having taken place prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act and the regulations framed thereunder, the High Court was wholly incorrect in arriving at its findings. B Respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.