U.P. POWER CORP. LTD. Vs VIMLA DEVI
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-009148-009148 / 2015
Diary number: 24328 / 2012
Advocates: RAKESH UTTAMCHANDRA UPADHYAY Vs
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