1 2025:CGHC:11680-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 169 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Having Its Registered OfÏce At Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Its Managing Director 2 - Chief Engineer (O&M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Tifra, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Executive Engineer (O&M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2/57 4 - Superintendent Engineer (O&M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Janjgir Circle, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Senior Account OfÏcer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Prakash Industries Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered OfÏce At 15 Km-Stone, Delhi Road, Hissar (Haryana) And Having Its Sponge Iron Plant At Village Kotadabri, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Through Its Executive Director (Corporate Affairs) And Power of Attorney Holder M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Champa (Chhattisgarh) Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atalnagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 3 - Chief Electrical Inspector Government of Chhattisgarh OfÏce of Chief Electrical Inspector, 36/437, Bairan Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 and 3 / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 is to the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1227/2007, by which the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) has been allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant(s) is that the writ petitioner-M/s Prakash Industries Limited is a private company running a Sponge Iron & Steel Plant situated in village Kotadabari, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. The writ petitioner is also an High Tension (for short, the HT) consumer of the appellant-Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (for short, the CSPDCL). The appellant-Company was earlier known as Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and was a Board established under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. After the enactment of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 the said Board was CSEB was bifurcated into 5 Companies, including the appellant-CSPDCL. 3. The writ petitioner entered into an HT agreement dated 30.09.1992with the CSEB for supply of 2500 KVA power. Clause 7a of the agreement provides 3 for Main Meter which was the metering equipment for registering the electrical energy. Clause 8 of the agreement provides an option to the consumer to get a Check Meter installed at his premises at its own expenses. However, the reading of the main meter was to be given precedence. Clause 14 of the agreement provides for the measurement of the quantity of electrical energy supplied in the eventuality of the Main Meter being found defective. On 11.02.1999 the CT/PT Unit attached with the Main Meter got damaged and the same was informed by the writ petitioner itself to the CSEB. The electricity supply was restored by the CSEB by making arrangements for bypassing the CT/PT Unit. The Executive Engineer (O&M), under the intimation to the Superintending Engineer, informed the writ petitioner vide letter dated 16.02.1999 that the billing would be done as per the meter-readings of the check meter installed by the CSEB in the dedicated feeder at 132 KV situated inside the Sub-Station at Champa or as decided by the competent authority. The writ petitioner was issued with the bill on the basis of readings but the petitioner vide letter dated 11.03.1999 objected and invoked Clause 14 of the HT agreement praying for average billing. The Review Committee acceded to the request of the writ petitioner and vide letter dated 31.03.1999 and the the writ petitioner was informed about the revised bill. The writ petitioner paid the revised bill on average basis. In the month of June, 1999 while studying the data of power consumption by the writ petitioner, the Superintending Engineer found that due to grant of average billing facility, the writ petitioner was taking undue financial advantage and was using excess power of the CSEB and was less using the power generated in his own captive power plant and only paying average bill causing loss to the public exchequer and the average billing was inequitable to the CSEB. The Superintending Engineer, exercising its powers under Clause 14 of the HT agreement issued the revised bill dated 14.06.1999 based on the readings of the dedicated meter installed in the Sub-Station at Champa for the amount of Rs. 1,61,71,183.00. Against the said order, the writ 4 petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 14 of the HT agreement vide letter dated 29.06.1999 and the matter was referred to the Chief Engineer for final decision. Vide order dated 18.07.2000, the Chief Engineer allowed the appeal of the writ petitioner to the extent that the Power Factor was changed resulting in reduction of bill from Rs. 1,61,71,183.00 to Rs.1,59,52,264.00 which was issued to the writ petitioner vide bill dated 26.07.2000. However, the writ petitioner without awaiting the decision in the appeal filed by him before the Chief Engineer vide notice dated 30.03.2000, invoked Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 12.07.2000 raised the dispute under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. However, as per the own intimation of the writ petitioner vide letter dated 01.08.2000, the aforesaid dispute was filed on 27.07.2000. The Chief Electrical Inspector, after considering the contentions of both the sides, partly allowed the dispute vide order dated 16.09.2005 and while the readings taken by the CSEB were found to be justified, the power factor benefit was given to the petitioner. The revised bill was again issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.10.2005. 4. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-CSPDCL submits that the writ petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector before a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 5676/2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2005, permitting the writ petitioner to file appeal under Section 36(2) of the Act. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector was considered and dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2006 after considering the grounds raised by the writ petitioner with regard to the Clause 7, 8, 14 of the Agreement as well as Section 26 of the Act. 5. In WPC No. 1227/2007, the writ petitioner challenged the order dated 16.09.2005 (Annexure P/28) to the extent it directed estimation of consumption of electrical energy supplied to it and further the order of the State Government dated25.09.2006 to declare the same as void and inoperative. The bill dated 5 13.10.2005 (Annexure P/29) was also sought to be quashed by declaring it void and inoperative and further sought a direction to the appellant-Company not to interfere with the electricity supply of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 16.09.2005 (Annexure P/28) as well as the supplementary bill for the period February, 1999 to April, 1999 (Annexure P/29) vide its order dated 10.12.2024, which is challenged herein this appeal. 6. According to Mr. Sharma, the main contention of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the State Government to the extent it directed the determination of energy bill and revision of bill was made contrary to Clauses 7(a), 8 and 14 of the agreement as also to the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910 as well as rules made thereunder. The writ petitioner further contended that the Chief Electrical Inspector had committed jurisdictional error in proceeding to decide estimation of electrical energy supplied after recording clear finding to this effect that there was no billing meter or the check-meter installed within the meaning of Section 26(1) or Section 26(7) of the Act, 1910. Therefore, the entire basis of the order directing the estimation and supplementary bill of the electrical energy for the period from February 1999 to April 1999 was wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the authority of the Chief Electrical Inspector and deserved to be quashed. The State Government/Appellate Authority also legally erred in afÏrming the order of Chief Electrical Inspector. The appellant CSPDCL contested the case contending inter alia that the writ petitioner was an HT consumer availing power supply of 33000 Volts to its Mini Steel Plant 4 Km away from 132/33 KV Sub-Station Champa. The line loss of 33 KV PIL dedicated feeder was not more than 1.0 to 2.5%. The writ petitioner also had its own captive Power Plant, which was synchronized with the Board's System, due to which writ petitioner maintained proper Voltage i.e.33000 Volts at its receiving end; and also fed the generated energy from its CPP to the Board's 6 132/33 KV Sub Station Champa and compensated the line loss, if any, of 33 KV PIL feeder. That the said 33 KV feeder being small and dedicated, the line loss of this feeder was negligible, and the line loss factor was not considerable. The appellant also contended that according to the said agreement, the billing meter was installed at the writ petitioner's premises with a CT/PT Unit (Current Transformer/Potential Transformer) to measure actual energy supply to the writ petitioner. On 20.07.1998, the CT/PT Unit of main meter was found defective at the writ petitioner's premises due to some internal technical defect. The power supply of writ petitioner was restored after by-passing the defective CT/PT unit, and meter reading of feeder meter which is installed at 132/33 KV 21/57 Sub- Station Champa was taken on dated 20.07.1998 in presence of the writ petitioner's representative for billing purpose. A written consent was also given in writing vide letter No. 482 dated 20.07.1998 that they agree to pay the payment as per the average/check meter as decided by the Board. 7. Mr. Sharma further submits that the High Court is having jurisdictional limitation while travelling into the exclusive domain of the assessing ofÏcer relating to passing of an order of assessment and determining the factual controversy of the case. The High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an appellate Court to decide the disputed question of facts, more particularly, the technical aspect which could have been left to the Committee consisting of experts. The writ Court should not ordinarily interfere with the decision taken by the expert body. 8. Mr. Sharma next submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that Section 26 of the Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Chief Electrical Inspector for determining the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. There is no restriction on the Chief Electrical Inspector to only allow average billing. Since the writ petitioner was taking undue advantage the billing procedure adopted by the Superintending Engineer cannot be faulted with. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that for the purpose of unauthorized 7 use of electricity and calculation of supplementary bill amount, there is restriction of "Check Meter". The supplementary bill dated 14.06.1999 was issued due to manipulation by the writ petitioner as he was drawing excess electricity from the CSEB taking advantage of bypassing of CT/PT unit thus, due to inequitable billing the Superintending Engineer took a decision under Clause 14 of the HT Agreement. The appeal under Clause 14 was also decided partly in favour of the writ petitioner vide order dated 18.07.2000 by the Chief Engineer still the writ petitioner filed the dispute on 27.07.2000 before the Chief Electrical Inspector only to avoid liability. The meter reading has been confirmed by the Chief Electrical Inspector within his jurisdiction. No legal error is present in the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector. Further, the contention that the objection of the writ petitioner that Clause 8 has not been followed, is wrong because the writ petitioner himself consented for meter reading from the Check Meter installed in the 132 KV Substation of the CSEB. The writ petitioner has been granted relief of power factor by the Chief Electrical Inspector still the petitioner has challenged the same contrary to public policy. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that this Hon'ble Court is not the appellate forum of the State Government under Section 36 of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and consequently, the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the main contesting party in this appeal is the respondent No. 1, however, he submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 10. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference. The learned Single Jude has taken into aspect all the relevant factors while deciding the petition and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. Taking note of the Section 26 of the Act of 1919 and Clauses 7, 8 and 14 of the HT agreement, the learned Single Judge has observed that an Electrical Inspector has the jurisdiction only with regard to the dispute as to whether the meter is correct or not or it is inherently defective or fault not recording correctly the electricity consumed. Further reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision of the Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board & Others v. Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala & Others {(1996) 4 SCC 686}, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and Others v. Smt. Basantibai {(1988) 1 SCC 23}, decisions of various High Courts viz. Smt. Basantibai v. M.P. State Electricity Board, Indore & Others {1984 SCC OnLine MP 101}, H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi {1987 (13) Del 225}, Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala v. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & Others {1988 SCC OnLine Pat 255}, Hanif Khan & Others v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others {1998 SCC OnLine Pat 356}, Khursed Sorabji Cooper v. Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking {1994 Mh.L.J.1428}, Shriram Bearings Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others {1997 SCC OnLine Pat 555}, and M/s Samrat Steels (India) v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others {1997 SCC OnLine Pat 570}. 13. It is an admitted position in this case that check meter was required to be installed in the premise of the writ petitioner which was not done which violates Section 26(1) and (6) of the Act of 1910 as also the clauses 7, 8 and 14 of the HT agreement. It has further rightly been observed that the Chief Electrical Inspector could not have proceeded to decide the consumption as the jurisdiction of the appellant authority was to decide only when there was a meter installed under Section 26(1) or Section 26(7) of the Act of 1910. The State/respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that there was no meter installed under Section 26(1) or 26(7) of the Act of 1910 read with clause 7(a) and 8 of 9 the agreement, therefore, no question arises for adjudication of the estimate of supply of electrical energy to the consumer. The learned Single Judge has further observed that when the meter was defective, the Chief Electrical Inspector had committed jurisdictional error in proceeding to decide estimation of electrical energy supplied even after recording clear finding to the effect that there was no billing meter or the check meter installed. The order passed by the appellate authority i.e. the State Government afÏrming the order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector without going into the aforesaid aspects, has also been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. There was a procedural defect in the assessment order as well as in the supplementary bill and the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules were not followed, and as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered and quashed the orders impugned therein. 14. We fully concur with the observations and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge and do not find any illegality or infirmity and as such, this appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.11 10:55:54 +0530