V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.
1. Heard with the contest of Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttaranchal Power Corporation. Mr. Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel has produced before us the original record.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, which is an Ice Factory at Gadarpur, challenges the order passed by the Appellate Committee formulated under Regulation 23 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. Shortly stated, the case of the petitioner is as under :
The petitioner used to run an ice factory. According to him, his total consumption of electricity for the factory was initially 39.5 horse power. According to him, on 18-4-1995, a team of engineers visited the factory, inspected the equipments and examined the capacity of the consumption of the equipments and machines. They found the total consumption as 39.5 horse power and, therefore, they directed the petitioner factory by order dated 18-4-1995 to get the load of electricity consumption increased, and accordingly, the petitioner got the load increased from 39.5 horse power to 42 horse power. It is further contended by the petitioner that on 4-2-1999, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, sent a notice and informed him that on inspection made by the departmental officials some irregularities were found in his electricity connection for which a penalty of Rs. 1,64,160/-was imposed upon him. It was also pointed out in the notice that though the electric load permitted was only 42 horse power, it was found on checking that electricity load of 90 horse power was actually used. The petitioner was directed to file objection, which he filed on 13-3-1999. In his objection, he pointed out that the transformer, from which the petitioner drew his electricity was of the capacity of 100 KV and on that transformer, apart from petitioner factory, there are 145 domestic and commercial connections attached and, therefore, it was quite impossible that the petitioner would and could draw the load of 90 horse power as indicated in the notice. He also complained that the electric meter is heated and shows heavy load, probably because there was defect in the transformer, such as sparking and motor of the petitioner being jammed. It is further pleaded that on 14-3-1999, that is, on the very next day, an endorsement was made by the Junior Engineer that the contention of the petitioner was correct because on the spot inspection, he had found that there was a problem of overloading on the transformer. The petitioner seems to have filed an application on 17-8-2000 submitting that he was running his ice factory with the same equipments and machines, which he had installed long back. and had not installed any new equipment and machines of higher load in the recent years and that he was not at fault in any over-loading being shown in the electric meter. It seems that all through the petitioner's case is that he could not have drawn the electricity power because it was of lesser capacity.
3. It seems that this application was treated as an appeal. The petitioner's case throughout was that he was having a normal consumption and the demand was made on the exorbitant reading. The Appellate Committee decided the matter and also took into consideration the report prepared by the Executive Engineer dated 10-1-2003. According to the petitioner, in this report, which is in favour of the petitioner, it was found that the capacitor was defective and the petitioner could not have consumed the load of 89.0 horse power because the transformer was only of 100 KV capacity, on which 145 domestic connections were also connected. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that the reason for showing higher load was due to the defect in the capacitor or due to the defect in the electric meter, for which the petitioner could not be blamed. Appellate Committee on consideration of all the factors, came to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner that the transformer which was having 145 domestic connections, could not have the capacity to supply 90 horse power electric energy to the petitioner, was incorrect. The Appellate Committee came to the conclusion that because of the diversity factor even if the transformer was of lesser capacity, it could still bear the load more than 100 KVs. Secondly, it also came to the conclusion that the checking report of the Sub-Divisional Officer of earlier times, cannot be the basis of calculation of the electric energy consumed by the petitioner. Thirdly, it recorded a finding that the submission of the petitioner that demand of the electricity may be increased because burning of the cables or meters becoming jam, had no basis whatsoever and this was imaginary. Fourthly, it recorded a finding that the Executive Engineer's opinion that the average power factor could not be 'one', was correct, and the load could not be calculated on the basis of power factor being 'one'. Fifthly, The appellate Committee took into consideration the peak demand as recorded from the meter reading inspection reports between the month of April, 1998 and October, 1998. On that basis, taking the maximum peak demand to be 67.11 and using the technical calculation, the power factor was fixed at 0.67 KVA and on that basis finding was arrived at that the petitioner had drawn the electric supply @ 60 horse power and not 90 horse power as was decided earlier. On that basis, the Appellate Committee came to the conclusion that the bill presented to the petitioner was not correct and it was liable to be revised. It seems that as against the bill of Rs. 1,64,160/-, bill of Rs. 41,040/-, was presented to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Bahuguna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner very vehemently assailed this order of the Appellate Committee on various technical grounds and contended that the Appellate Committee had wrongly calculated the electric power supply to the petitioner. Learned counsel, however, has not contended before us as to what should be the actual power supply to be held. The learned counsel also assailed the order on the basis that this was a case of faulty meter and, therefore, the Appellate Committee, should have taken into consideration the guide lines provided in Regulation 21 (iii) (a) and (b), both the regulations are quoted as under :
'21. Meters-....................................
(iii) (a) If at any time a meter becomes defective or ceases to register the consumption and no theft or mal-practice is suspected, the electrical energy consumed by the consumer during the period the meter remained defective or stopped shall be determined on the basis of average consumption of the preceding three consecutive months.
(b) If, however, the conditions in regard to use of electricity did not remain the same during such period of three preceding months with the period during which the meter ceased to function or became defective, the electricity consumed by the consumer may be determined on the basis of connected load and hours of usage of electricity. In case of industrial consumers due regard shall be given to production figures and conditions of working during the period under question.'
One look on these provisions would show that they are made applicable only where it is established that the meter was defective. We are afraid that it is not a case here. Though the petitioner has tried to suggest that the meter became defective or registered more energy for the time being, there does not appear to be any such finding of any authority. At least the Appellate Committee has not recorded that finding. There is no doubt that reference has been made of the opinion of the Executive Engineer that more power can be recorded either on capacitor being defective or meter being defective. There is a clear finding even in the earlier inspection that the capacitor had become defective. This naturally excludes the possibility of meter being defective. Once that finding is given, there would be no question of relying on Regulation 21 Clause (iii) (a) and (b). That argument is, therefore, rejected.
5. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the inspection report dated 14-3-1999. That translated report is as under :-
'The contention of the consumer is truthful. That there is overload of 100 KVA and there is problem of voltage.'
In our opinion this report takes the case of the petitioner no where. When we see the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee, it is obvious that the Appellate Committee has taken that into consideration. It is observed that the concerned officer had checked and at that time, the load was found to be commensurate to 43.2 horse power. Therefore, it is not as if the Appellate Committee was not alive to that report.
6. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that the calculations were made on the basis of the maximum demand of 67.11 KVA. This, according to him, should have been done by taking average demand. That is certainly, not possible because the calculations of power supply would normally be made on the basis of peak demand, because that alone would be a guiding factor as to what was the requirement of power. This will be apart from the fact that it will not be in our domain/jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit over an appeal before the body, which is equipped with the experts, and whose judgment is based on the scientific data. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard at all and there was any defect in the constitution of that Appellate Committee. Therefore, it will have to be held that the Appellate Committee was right in considering all the factors and actually gave substantial relief of approximately Rs. 1,20,000/- to the petitioner. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere in this writ petition.
7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one Thousand only).