Skip to main content

Power firms can't change meters unilaterally: HC

A power company cannot unilaterally change a consumer's electricity meter because it suspects the instrument is defective, the Bombay high court has ruledin an important order.

Putting the reins on power companies, Justice Ashok Bhangale, while hearing a two-decade-old case, said that if there was a dispute about the working of a meter, in the absence of allegations of fraud against the consumer, the matter has to be referred to the electricity inspector. Moreover, the inspector can decide on additional charges only for a period up to six months prior to when the dispute was raised.

"Provisions of the Indian Electricity Act manifest that the original correct meter once installed acquires a sacrosanct status. After installation, both parties cannot remove or replace the meter," said the judge.

The court said that if the power company or consumer suspects that a meter is defective, then the matter should be brought before the electricity inspector. The company will not be permitted to replace the meter until its correctness is decided by the officer.

"Doubts about a defective meter must be finally scrutinized and decided by the electrical inspector on a reference made to such authority. The board [Maharashtra State Electricity Board] should not be permitted to instal another meter simply by doubting the correctness of the earlier meter installed by it," said the judge. "Any proposal of substitution of one meter by another should not be permitted until the correctness of the installed meter is decided by electrical inspector as incorrect. Any liberty granted to the board to continue to dislodge and dislocate one meter after another meter unreasonably, arbitrarily , whimsically and without the concurrence of the consumer will encourage mischief and high-handedness of the board and such action is bound to seriously impair the rule of law between the parties."

The court was hearing a dispute that dates back to 1993, when the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) issued a notice to Thane-based Hindustan Gas Industries Ltd (HGIL) asking it to pay additional charges as the meter was found to be slow and threatened to disconnect the power supply within 24 hours. HGIL challenged the letter, which was struck down by the civil court in 1999. MSEB challenged the order in the high court.

The court said that the law makes it clear that if a dispute is raised, the limit set is six months prior and the meter reading before that cut-off date is presumed to be correct.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Power-firms-cant-change-meters-unilaterally-HC/articleshow/22955002.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more