Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9148  OF 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 23721/2012)

U. P. Power Corporation Limited and others … Appellant (s)   

Versus

Vimla Devi and another … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

   Leave granted.    

2. The  short  dispute  in  this  case  pertains  to  the  steps

taken  by  the  appellant-Corporation  for  levying  the  energy

charges on the first respondent for the period of the alleged

meter  fault.  On  the  basis  of  the  inspection  conducted  on

25th/28th November,  2009  by  the  Junior  Engineer  of  the

appellant-Corporation, the first respondent was served with a

notice  dated  23.03.2010  demanding  an  amount  of

Rs.1,97,815/-  towards  energy  charges  which  escaped  billing.

The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court

1

NON-REPORTABLE

Page 2

which  was  disposed  of  by  judgment  dated  18.05.2010

permitting  her  to  file  objections  and  directing  the  Executive

Engineer to consider the objections and pass a speaking order.

The Executive Engineer, by order dated 08.06.2010, passed the

revised  order  limiting  the  demand  to  Rs.50,891/-.  The  said

order was challenged before the High Court in C.W.P. No. 19347

of 2012 leading to the impugned judgment.

3. The High Court, having conducted an elaborate inquiry

into the matter,  found that there was no justification for  the

demand.  It  was  held  that  the  proper  procedure  prescribed

under law was not followed in inspection and preparation of the

report.  Still  further,  it  was  held  that  even  the  appellate

authority did not discharge its functions as expected of them.

The displeasure on the conduct of the assessing officer and the

appellate authority was directed to be recorded in their annual

character  roll  (annual  confidential  report)  for  the  relevant

period.  The  writ  petition  was  thus  allowed  with  costs  of

Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellant-Corporation with liberty

to  recover  the  same  from  the  officials  concerned  after

conducting an appropriate inquiry. There was also a direction to

communicate  the  order  to  the  Chief  Secretary  for  ensuring

2

Page 3

compliance  of  the  directions  by  the  High  Court.  And  thus

aggrieved,  the Corporation and its  officials  have come up in

appeal.

4. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and

the respondents.  

5. Though several contentions are raised by the Counsel

on  both  sides,  the  dispute  essentially  is  in  a  very  narrow

compass.  According  to  the  appellants,  for  whatever  reason,

there was short assessment of energy charged at the premises

of the first respondent during the period between 05.11.2008,

when the old meter was replaced and 31.01.2010. It is not in

dispute that a new meter was installed at the premises of the

first respondent on 23.01.2010. It is fairly conceded that when

the meter  at  the  premises  of  a  consumer  is  reported  to  be

non-functional, and if consequently, there is short assessment

for a long period, the bills can be revised for that period but

limiting  to  twelve  months.  What  should  be  the  basis  of  the

assessment, is the simple question.  

6. There  is  no  case  for  the  appellants  that  the  meter

installed on 23.01.2010 had any fault thereafter, in any case,

3

Page 4

for quite some time. Therefore, having regard to the entire facts

and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest

of  justice  will  be  served  if  the  energy  bills  of  the  first

respondent are revised for a period of twelve months ending

with  31.01.2010,  taking  the  average  of  twelve  months  from

01.02.2010. In other words, based on the average consumption

for a period of twelve months beginning from 01.02.2010, the

energy  bills  of  the  first  respondent  for  a  period  of  twelve

months  ending  with  31.01.2010  shall  be  revised.  A  fresh

demand on that basis shall  be issued to the first respondent

within  two  months  from  today.  After  adjusting  the  amounts

already paid for the said period, the first respondent shall pay

the balance amount within another one month failing which it

will  be  open  to  the  appellants  to  take  appropriate  coercive

action permitted under law. It is made clear that this order has

thus given a quietus to the entire  dispute raised in  the writ

petition regarding the short assessment.

7. Having  said  that  we  have  also  to  address  the

grievances raised by the appellants with regard to the adverse

observations against the conduct of the officers and a direction

by  the  High  Court  to  record  displeasure  in  the  annual

4

Page 5

confidential  report  of  the assessing officer and the appellate

authority. Going through the materials available on record as

produced by both sides, we find that there is no justification for

any  such  direction  by  the  High  Court.  Apparently,  the

authorities have only discharged their functions under law. It

appears that there has been some procedural irregularity. But

that does not mean that there is any malafide or illegal conduct

on the part of the officers. It may be noted that even according

to the High Court, an inquiry is to be conducted for fastening

the  liability.  If  that  be  so,  there  is  no  justification  for  the

remarks  against  the  assessing  officer  and  the  appellate

authority.  It  is  seen  from  the  records  that  there  is  marked

difference in the pattern of consumption after the new meter

was  installed  in  January,  2010.  In  such  circumstances,  it  is

difficult to digest any allegation of motivated conduct on the

part of the two officers.

8. Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed  with  directions  as

above on reassessment. The adverse remarks on the conduct

of  the officers are expunged and the directions contained in

paragraphs-48,  49  and  51  of  the  impugned  judgment  are

vacated. The order on costs is also vacated.  

5

Page 6

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                         ..…….…..…………J.

                   (T. S. THAKUR)

..……………………J.                     (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; October 30, 2015.  

6