Holding

The licensee lawfully exercised the power conferred by Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to replace the meter, and the replacement was not illegal.

Summary

The consumer, Suresh Jindal, challenged the replacement of his electromechanical electricity meter with an electronic one by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, alleging the new meter ran fast (+1.79%) and was illegal. He sought a writ of mandamus to quash the replacement and the testing report. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and the subsequent letters patent appeal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the licensee was authorized under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to enter premises and replace or alter meters, and that this power is not limited by Section 26. The Court found no statutory prohibition on the replacement, noted that the consumer had not objected to the change, and emphasized the policy decision to replace old meters with electronic ones. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and whether it authorises meter replacement without being controlled by Section 26.
Whether the licensee's replacement of the meter was ultra vires or illegal.
The applicability of Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 to the replacement.
The effect of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 and related regulations on the licensee's authority.
Whether the consumer was entitled to a writ of mandamus to prevent the use of the electronic meter.

Legislation cited

Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000s. 14, s. 15, s. 61, s. 63, s. 64
Electricity Act, 1910s. 20, s. 26
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
General Clauses Act
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956s. 57

Subjects

meter replacementelectronic meterIndian Electricity ActSection 20Section 26consumer rightsmandamusstatutory interpretationDelhi Electricity Reforms Actregulatory authority

Judgment

l
SURESH JINDAL A
v.
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS.

OCTOBER 11, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Indian Electricity Act, 191 O; Ss. 35 and 26/Delhi Electricity
Reforms Act, 2000; Ss. 14, 15, 61, 63 and 64/Delhi Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Pe1formance and Standards-Metering and c
Billing) Regulations, 2002:
Electric energy recording meter-Replacement by an electronic
meter by Licensee-Electric meter so replaced allegedly running
faster-Challenge to-Dismissed by High Court-Letters Patent
D
Appeal also dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Appellant-
consumer did not object to change ofmeter and allowed respondent-
Licensee to change his correct meter by another one which he admitted
- -I
·was also correct-He, later, cannot contend that the meter does not
record correct consumption of electricity-A policy decision for
replacement ofold electric meters with the new electronic meters issued
E
by Electricity Regulatory Commission in terms ofprovisions under
1948 Act to meet the requirement ofannual reserve fund-S. 20 confers
i power on Licensee to alter a meter which includes replacement of a
meter-There exists no power in any of the Statutes connected with
electricity supply which prohibits the Licensee to replace one meter F
y
by another-Creative interpretation of the provisions of the Statute
demands that with advancement in science and technology, the Court
should read the provision ofthe Statute in a manner so as to give effect
thereto-Hence, Licensee had necessary authority to replace the meter
in terms of provision u/s. 20 of 1910 Act-General Clauses Act- G
Statutory power--Exercise of-Jnte1pretation of Statutes.
~
Words & Phrases:

53 H
t
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
'r'
A 'Licensee '-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(e) of the
Electricity Act,, 1910.
'Board '-Meaning of in the context ofDelhi Electricity Reform
(Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001.
B A meter for the purpose of recording of consumption of
electrical energy was installed at the premises of the appellant-
consumer. It was replaced by an electronic meter by respondent-
Licensee. The electronic meter when tested by the officials of the y

respondent, it was found that the same was running fast by about
c +1.79% which is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter
installed in the premises was of Class-I category. He filed a writ
petition before the High Court praying for order/direction in the
nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby declaring the acts of the
officials of the respondents as illegal and malafide in replacing the
D correct and working electricity meter of the petitioner by an
electronic meter at his residence. The writ petition was dismissed
by the Single Judge of the High Court. A letters patent appeal
preferred thereagainst by the consumer was also dismissed by the >-
High Court. Hence the present appeal.
E Appellant-consumer contended that in the facts and under the
circumstances of the case, since Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being
not applicable, the High Court committed a serious error in passing
the impugned judgment; that Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, ~
1956 whereupon reliance was placed by the respondents in their
F counter affidavit is clearly inapplicable and thus reliance so placed
by the High Court was wholly unwarranted; that the tariff framed y
by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any jurisdiction upon the
respondents to remove the correct meter and replace the same by
another meter; that the only provision which could have been taken
[
)

G recourse to for replacement of a meter being Section 26 of the 1910 '
~
Act and the same was not applicable in this case; that margin of error
in the meter being 1.79% in one case and 3.79% in the other which ¥
•
~

is in excess of 1 per cent of error provided for in the proviso
appended to Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, the appellant
H had a legal right to obtain a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
t
SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 55

the respondents not to rely thereupon for the purpose of calculating A
the amount of consumption of electrical energy recorded therein;
and that in any view of the matter, replacement of the meter having
taken place prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act and the
regulations framed thereunder, the High Court was wholly incorrect
in arriving at its findings. B
Respondents-Licensee submitted that in terms of Section 20
of the 1910 Act, a general power has been conferred on the licensee
'I' to remove a correct meter and replace the same by another meter
which records more accurately the actual consumption of electrical
energy having regard to the development of technology and thus c
such an action, being de-hors provisions of Section 26 of the Act,
would not be controlled thereby.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Appellant did not object to the change of the meter. D
It proceeded on the basis that the change of the meter is permissible
in law. He being allegedly unaware of his rights allowed the
respondent to enter into his premises and change a correct meter
by another one which according to him is also correct. It, therefore,
does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to turn round and E
contend that electronic meters do not record correct consumption
of electrical energy. It is one thing to say that electronic meters when
tested do not register the actual consumption, as a result whereof,
the consumer would have to pay the energy charges more than he
is othenvise liable but it is another thing to say that it was legally F
impermissible. It is not, however denied or disputed that whether
y meter is installed by the licensee or by the consumer himself, the
same must have the requisite certificate granted in terms of the
regulations, the provisions wherefor have been made in the
regulations made under the Delhi Electricity Act, 2000.
G
(Para 38) [68-B-D]
~ 1.2. If Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 conferred
a power which is not othenvise controlled by Section 26 thereof, the
question of the respondent acting wholly without jurisdiction or
arbitrarily would not arise. [Para 39) [68-E] H
)..--
\

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
v!
A 2.1. Regulations made in the year 2002 provided for detailed
guidelines in regard to the procedures required to be followed by
the utilities for providing new connections, replacement of defective
meters etc. The said regulations admittedly were amended in 2003
providing for payment of compensation to consumers in case of
B repeated levy of arrears for bills already paid. If there had been any
violation of the meter and billing regulation, the utilities could be
imposed with penalties. It is at that stage, a policy decision was
taken by the electricity Regulatory Commission for replacement of
old electromechanical meters with new electronic meters as a part
c of the Scheme. The Commission in its Order on Annual Revenue
Requirement issued directions with regard to replacement of meters
which were carried out pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof.
[Para 40] [68-H; 69-A-C]
2.2. Under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the State had a role
D to play. Its directions in relation to the policy matters were binding
on the State Electricity Boards. Such a power continued to be
operative. If, therefore, the Electricity Regulatory Commission
which was an independent body could make tariff and for that .}-

purpose had the statutory authority to issue certain directions, no
E exception thereto can be taken. [Para 41] [69-F]
3.1. Section 26 of the 1910 Act operates in different fields. It
comes into being only when there exists a dispute. The dispute may
be in regard to the'quantum of the amount required to be expended
for removing the meter or the correctness of the meter. The dispute
F may also be, in the event, the meter is held to be not recording the
consumption of electrical energy correctly, the amount to which the
'(
consumer would be liable to pay, in relation thereto.
[Para 44) [70-E]

G 3.2. Section 20 of 1910 Act operates in one field namely
conferring a power of entry on the licensee. The provision empowers
the licensee inter alia to alter a meter which would include ).._
replacement of a meter. It is an independent general provision. In
absence of any statutory provision, there exists no reason to put a
H restrictive meaning thereto. [Para 43) [70-A-B)
SURESHJINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 57
[SINHA,J.]
3.3. Even under the General Clauses Act, a statutory authority A
while exercising statutory power may do all things which are
necessary for giving effect thereto. There does not exist any
provision in any of the statutes as referred to which precludes or
prohibits the licensee to replace one set of meter by another. If such
a provision is read into the statute, the same would come in the way B
of giving effect to the benefits of new technological development.
Creative interpretation of the provisions of the statute demands that
with the advance in science and technology, the Court should read
the provisions of a statute in such a manner so as to give effect
thereto. (Para 43] [70-B-D] c
State ofMaharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai & Anr., (2003]
4 sec 601, relied on.
3.4. It is correct that the matter at the relevant point of time
was not covered by any statutory regulations, but even otherwise, D
the respondent had the said authority under Section 20 of the 1910
Act. [Para 46) [70-G-H]
Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd And Ors. v. UP. State Electricity Board
And Anr., [1997] 6 SCC 740, held inapplicable.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4789 of
2007. .
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.2006 of the High Comt
of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P .A. No. 256 of 2006.
F
Sanjay Parikh, Lalit Kumar, Anitha Shenoy, Nitin R, Jatin Sahni and
A.N. Singh for the Appellant.
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Arnn Jaitely, R. Srivastava, Amit Kapur,
Mansoor Ali, Vibha Datta Makhija, Sadhna Sandhu, D.S. Mahra and
Suresh Chandra Tripathy for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is a H
\r
(

\

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
y
A licensee. A meter for the purpose of recording consumption of electrical
energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter.
3. The electronic meter was tested by the officials of the respondent
and it was found that the same was running fast by about +1. 79% which
B is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises
was of Class-I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court
inter alia contending;
"4. That the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner was ''I'
intact and OK and was recording the consumption as per
c Section 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules, 1956 and there was
no percentage error in the recording of the consumption in the
meter earlier installed by the agents of the Respondent in the
premises of the Petitioner.
5. That the Petitioner believing the intention of the Respondent
D has permitted the Respondent to install the meter of their own
choice believing that the meter which was installed in the
premises of the Petitioner is of approved design and
specification ofISI and also in accordance with the rules and \.-
regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003."
E
In the writ petition, the following prayers were made by him:
a. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus,
thereby declaring the acts of the officials of the Respondents
as illegal and malafide in replacing the correct and working
F meter of the Petitioner by another meter in respect of electricity
connection bearing K.No.2540F320018 installed for 134, First
Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. 'r

b. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus,
thereby quashing the meter testing report prepared on 03/03/
G 2005 ·in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No.
2540F320018 installed for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar,
Delhi. -•
c. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus
H thereby directing the Respondent to get the meter of the
/

SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 59
[SINHA,J.]
Petitioner tested as per rule 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules A
1956 through an independent agency or in any other manner
a'5 this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
d. A writ order or direction thereby directing the Respondent to
calibrate, seal and install at the premises of the Petitioner, the B
electro mechanical energy meter oflSI make procured by the
Petitioner in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No.
2540F320018 for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi after
replacing the existing meter."
c
4. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court by a judgment and Order dated 14.12.2005. A letters
patent appeal was preferred thereagainst and by reason of the impugned
judgment, the same has been dismissed. Appellant is, thus, before us.
5. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the D
appellant in support of the appeal, inter alia, would submit;
(i) Respondent being a licensee governed by the Indian Electricity
Act, 19 IO (hereinafter referred as "19 IO Act"); the provisions of
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as "1948 Act") or the E
subsequent Acts namely Delhi Electricity Refonns Act, 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as "2000 Act") or Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being not
applicable, the High Court committed a serious eiTor in passing the
impugned judgment.
(ii) Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 whereupon reliance F
was placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit is clearly
inapplicable and thus reliance placed thereupon by the High Court in this
behalf was wholly w1warranted.
(iii) The tariff framed by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any G
jurisdiction upon the respondents to remove the correct meter and replace
the same by another correct meter.
(iv) The only provision which could have been taken recourse to
for replacement of a meter being Section 26 of the 1910 Act and the
same being not applicable in this case, the impugned Judgment cannot be H
~-
\
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
'<"
I

A sustained.

(v) Margin of error in the meter being 1. 79% in one case and 3.79%
in the other which is in excess of 1 per cent of error provided for in the
proviso appended to Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, the appellant
B had a legal right to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents not to rely thereupon for the purpose of calculating the
amount of consumption of electrical energy recorded therein.
(vi) In any view of the matter, replacement of the meter having taken
place prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act and the regulations
c framed thereunder, the High Court was wholly incorrect in arriving at its
findings.
6. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, on the other hand, would principally rely upon Section
20 of the 1910 Act to submit that by reason thereof a general power has
D
been conferred on the licensee to remove a correct meter and replace
the same by another meter which records more accurately the actual
consumption of electrical energy having regard to the development of
technology and thus such an action, being de-hors provisions of Section )..

26 of the Act, would not be controlled thereby. Appellant being a
E
consumer of electrical energy from Delhi Vidyut Board which was a State
Electricity Board within the meaning of 1948 Act and the respondent being
its successor in terms of 2000 Act and 2003 Act, the impugned judgment
is unassailable.

F 7. The 1910 Act was enacted on 18th March, 1910.
8. The said Act regulated the terms and conditions of supply of
"(
electrical energy to the consumers. Licensees in those days used to be
private companies. Actual terms of the contract for supply of electrical
energy by the licensees to its consumers were governed by the terms and
G conditions of contract entered into by and between the parties thereto.
The said Act provide for powers and obligations of the licensee on the
_,,
one hand as also the rights and obligations on the part of the consumers
on the other. By reason thereof, licensees under the said Act being public
utility concerns were bound thereby. It could exercise the statutory powers
H
SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED 61
,, [SINHA,J.]

conferred upon it, which was otherwise not available under the common A
law or the terms of the contract entered into by and between the parties.
9. Section 20 of the Act confers power on the licensee to enter
into the premises, inter alia, for the purpose of inspecting, testing,
repairing or altering meters instituted in the premises of the consumers. B
The said provision ex-fade is not controlled by any other provision
' -; thereto. Section 21 of the Act empowers a licensee to prescribe any
form of appliance in utilising energy supplied by him. All kind of
utilisation of appliances is governed by the said provisions. The said
provision has nothing to do with installation or testing or replacing any
meter. Section 26 ensures installation of correct meter so that the
c
consumption of electrical energy may be recorded. A meter can be
installed either by the licensee or by the consumer. An obligation, thus,
to keep the meter correct will be either on the licensee or the consumer,
as the case may be. Sub-section (4) of Section 26 empowers the
licensee to have access for the purpose of inspecting and testing the D
~- meters and for the said purpose the same could be taken off or
removed.
-'
10. In case however of any dispute or difference and in the event
the meter installed in the premises of the consumer is found to be not E
correct, in regard to the quantum amount of reasonable expenses for
the purpose of taking off or removal of the meter, the Electrical Inspector
would be the sole authority to determine the same. The Electrical
Inspector as a statutory authority was also empowered to enter into
and determine the disputes and differences between the parties not only F
in regard to the correctness of the meter but also quantify the amount
y payable by the consumer to the licensee ifhe comes to the opinion
that the meter has ceased to be correct subject of course to the
condition that the same would not exceed the period of six months.
11. The principal question which arises for our consideration is G
as to whether the power conferred upon the licensee under Section
;. 20 of the Act is controlled by Section 26 thereof We would deal with
the said question a little later.
12. We may now have a quick look at the provisions of the other H
62 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A statutes. The provisions'of 1948 Ad, which is a post-independence Act,
cast a duty on the State to constitute a Board for the purpose of
generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electrical energy. It is
a body corporate and can sue and be sued in its own name. Section 26
of the 1948 Act provides for conferment of powers and obligations of
B the licensees in the Board as provided for under the 1910 Act wherefor
a legal fiction has been raised. The proviso appended to Section 26 of
1948 Act reads as under:-
"Provided that nothing in sections 3 to 11, sub-sections (2) and
(3) of section 21 and section 22, sub-section (2) of Section 22A
c and sections 23 and 27 of that Act or in clauses 1 to V, clause
VII and clauses IX to XII of the Schedule to that Act relating to
the duties and obligations of a licensee shall apply to the Board:"

D 13. Section 20 of the 1910 Act was, therefore, made operative
under the 1948 Act so far as the Board is concerned and thus the said
power was exercisable by it. Rules were made in terms of Section 37 of
the 1910 Act only in the year 1957. Rule 57(1) of the Rules reads as
under:-
E "57(1) Any meter or maximum demand indicator or other
apparatus placed upon a consrnner' s premises in accordance with
section 26 shall be of appropriate capacity and shall be deemed
to be correct if its limits of error are within the limits specified in
the relevant Indian Standard Specification and where no such
F specification exists, the limits of error do not exceed 3 per cent
above or below absolute accuracy at all loads in e~cess of one
tenth of full load and up to full load:"
14. Although reliance has been placed by the respondents in their
G counter affidavit on the said rule, ex-facie the same is not very relevant
for our purpose. We would, however, deal with the contention of Mr.
Parikh with regard to the construction of the said provision at a later stage.
15. The Parliament enacted Electricity Regulatory Commission Act
in the year 1998 wherewith we are not concerned. It may however be
H
-{

SURESHJINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 63
[SINHA,J.]
noticed that the National Capital Territory of Delhi enacted the Delhi A
Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "2000 Act'').
16. Section 2(e) thereof defines "licence" to mean a licence granted
under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
17. Section 14 provides for re-organisation of electricity industries; B
sub-section (1) whereof reads as under:-
"Sec. 14(1) The Government may, as soon as may be after the
commencement of this Act, cause one or more companies to be
incorporated and set up under the provisions of the Companies
Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) for the purpose of generation, transmissiQn C
or distribution of electricity, including companies engaged in more
than one of the said activities, in the National Capital Territory of
Delhi and may transfer the existing generating stations or the
transmission system or distribution system, or any part of the
transmission system or distribution system, to such company or D
companies."
Sub-sec:tions (3) and (6) of Section 14 of the said Act read as under:
Sec. 14(3) The companies incorporated and set up under sub-
section ( 1) shall undertake the functions specified in this section E
and such other functions as may be assigned to them by the
Government.
1
Sec. 14(6) The Government may convert the companies set up
under this Act to joint venture companies through a process of F
disinvestment, in accordance with the transfer scheme prepared
y under the provisions of this Act.

18. Section 15 provides for reorganisation of Delhi Vidyut Board
and. transfer of properties, functions and duties thereof.
G
19. Delhi Vidyut Board was constituted by the National Capital
Territory of Delhi in terms of the provisions of 1948 Act.

20. By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 15 all the powers
conferred upon the Companies as had been existing in the Boards under
H
}--
\

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Section 26 of the 1948 Act were saved.
21. By reason of Section 63, the provisions thereof were to prevail
over the provisions of 1910 Act and 1948 Act in regard to the matters
which were inconsistent therewith or contrary thereto. Sub-section (3) of
Section 63 provides that upon establishment of the Commission, the
B provisions of the 1910 Act and 1948 Act were to be read subject to the
modifications and reservations contained therein, the relevant clauses
whereof are as under:-
"(i) All references to State Electricity Board in the Indian Electricity
c Act, 1910 (9of1910) in so far as the National Capital Territory
of Delhi is concerned shall be read as references to the Delhi
Electricity Regulatory Commission or the companies established
under section 14 or other licensees or wherever it relates to general
policy matters, to the Government.
D (ii) In respect of matters provided in sections 3 to 11, 28, 36(2),
49A, 50 and 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9of1910),
to the extent this Act has made specific provisions, the provisions
of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) shall not apply in ).
the National Capital Teni.tory of Delhi."
E
So far as 1948 Act is concerned, it is provided :
"(v) All references to State Electricity Board in the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 (54of1948) in so far as the National Capital
Territory of Delhi is concerned shall be read as references to the
F Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission or the companies
established under section 14 or other licensees or where it relates
to general policy matters, to the Government.
(vi) In respect of matters provided in sections 5 to 18, 19, 20, 23
to 27, 37, 40 to 45, 46 to 54, 56 to 69, 72 and 75 to 83 of the
G Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948), to the extent this Act
has made specific provisions, the provisions of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 (54of1948) shall not apply in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi."
H 22. Section 26 of the 1948 Act therefore, would not apply only
SURESHJINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED 65
[SINHA, J.]
r
when there exist any corresponding provision in the 2000 Act. It is not A
disputed that no such provision is in existence. If there does not exist any
provision contrary to or inconsistent with Section 26 of the Act, the same
would, indisputably, continue to apply.
23. St::ction 64 of the said Act provides for the saving clause. B
24. We may now notice constitution of various entities in terms of
"">
the 2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The National Capital
Territory of Delhi in exercise of its power conferred by Section 60 read
with Sections 15 and 16 of 2000 Act made Rules known as Delhi
Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. The said Rules are c
statutory in nature. They provide for transfer and vesting of assets,
liabilities, proceedings and personnel of Delhi Vidyut Board in the
successor entities and for detennining the terms and conditions on which
such transfer or vesting shall take effect.
D
,. 25. In the said Rules, "Board" has been defined to mean Delhi
Vidyut Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948. Rule 2(f) defines "DISCOM 2" to mean "South-West Delhi
J>,
Electricity Distribution Company Limited", a company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) with the principal object of engagfug
in the business of distribution and supply .of electricity in the area as E
specified in P&1 II of Schedule 'H'.
26. The term "transferee" has been defined in Rule 2(r) to mean
'GENCO', 'TRANSCO', 'DISCOMS' and 'PPCL', as the case may
be, in whom the undertaking or undertakings or the assets, liabilities, p
proceedings and personnel of the Board, as the case may be, are vested
in terms of these rules and shall include the holding company;
27. Rule 4(1) provides that assets, liabilities and proceedings
transferred to the government under sub-rule ( 1) of rule 3 shall stand
classified as under: G
(a) Rights and interests in Pragati Power Project as set out in
Schedule 'A'
(b) Generation Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'B'.
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A (c) Transmission Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'C'
·I

(d) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'D~
(e) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'E'.
B (t) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'F'.

(g) Holding Company with assets and liabilities as set out in Schedule }-
'G'.
28. Rule 5(1 )(d) of the Rules provides that the undertaking forming
c part of the Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'D', shall stand
transferred to and vest in the DISCOM 1, on and from the date of the
transfer appointed for the said purpose.
29. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 provides for the consequences of such
transfers in the following terms :
D
"Rule 5(2) On such transfer and vesting of the undertakings in terms
of sub-rule (1 ), the respective transferee shall be responsible for
all contracts, rights, deeds, schemes, bonds, agreements and other
instrume~ts of whatever nature, relating to the respective

E
undertaking and assets and liabilities transferred to it, to which the
Board was a party, subsisting or having effect on the date of the
transfer, in the same manner as the Board was liable immediately
before the date of the transfer, and the same shall be in force and
effect against or in favour of the respective transferee and may be
enforced effectively as if the respective transferee had been a party
F
thereto instead of the Board."
30. Rule 10 provides for the rights and powers of the transferees,
sub-Rule (2) whereof reads as under :
"Rule 10(2) Within sixty days of the effective date of transfer, the
G
DISCOMS shall apply to the Commission for the grant oflicence
under the Act to undertake the business of distribution and retail
supply of electricity in the.respective areas of supply as specified
in Schedule 'H' :"

H 31. Indisputably, pursuant thereto and/or in furtherance thereof,
~)

SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED 67
[SINHA,J.]
-r
applications were made for grant of license by the first respondent herein A
and such license have since been granted in its favour by the
Commissioner.
32. We may also notice that regulations have been framed in terms
of Section 61 of the 2000 Act known as The Delhi Electricity Regulatory
B
Commission (Performance Standards- Metering and Billing) Regulations,
.., 2002 .

., 33. Chapter 5 of the said Regulations provide for metering, laying
down that all installations subject to exemption shall be serviced with a
meter and all the requirements as laid down in Section 26 of the 2000 c
Act shall be complied with.
34. To complete the narration of the statutory Scheme, we may also
notice that Delhi Electricity Supply Company undertaking framed
conditions of supply whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the
High Court in arriving at its finding. But, we may ignore the same inasmuch D
)- as the same are not statutory in nature.
35. Before embarking on other questions raised at the Bar, we would
like to place on record that the High Court had placed strong reliance on
the rationale of replacing the existing meters with electronic meters, but, E
we are of the opinion that the same is not at all relevant as in the event it
is held that the respondent had no authority to replace the existing meters
with electronic meters, rationale or other justifications in support thereof
would not legalise an illegal act.
[See Hindustan Times and Ors. v. State of UP. and Anr., [2003] F
1 1 sec 591 Para 30].
.,.,
36. We have referred to at some details the statutory scheme only
for the purpose of showing that there had all along been a continuity in
the matter of supply of electrical energy in the National Capital Territory G
of Delhi either by a private company or by a State Electricity Board, as
the case may be. We, at this stage, make it clear that we do not intend to
go into the question of applicability of the provisions of the 2003 Act and
the regulations made thereunder, for the reason that regulations made
under Section 50 of the 2003 Act came into force on and from 8.4.2007 H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A and Section 55 thereof came into force on 10.3.2006 and, thus, the said
Act was not in force at the relevant time.
37. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 49 of the 1948
Act and the regulations and the tariff framed by the Delhi Vidyut Board.
B 38. At the outset we have noticed that the appellant did not object
to the change of the meter. It proceeded on the basis that the change of
;i..
the meter is permissible in law. He being allegedly unaware of his rights
allowed the respondent to enter into his premises and change a correct "1
meter by another one which according to him is also correct. It, therefore,
c in our opinion does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to tum round
and contend that electronic meters do not record correct consumption of
electrical energy. It is one thing to say that electronic meters when tested
do not register the actual consumption, as a result whereof, the consumer
would have to pay the energy charges more than he is otherwise liable
D but it is another thing to say that it was legally impem1issible. It is not,
however denied or disputed that whether meter is installed by the licensee
--{
or by the consumer himself, the same must have the requisite ce11ificate
granted in te1ms of the regulations, the provisions wherefor have been }.

made in the regulations made under the 2000 Act.
E 39. If Section 20 of the 1910 Act conferred a power which is not
otherwise controlled by Section 26 thereof, the question of the respondent
acting wholly without jurisdiction or arbitrarily would not arise.
Indisputably, after the Electricity Regulatory Commission came into being,
it issued certain directions. It had to make tariff. For the purpose of making
F tariff, certain checks and balances were required to be made. The
loopholes then existing in the matter of transmission of electrical energy '(
..,,
.
which resulted in a huge transmission loss was to be taken care of.
Therefore, a direction was issued by the Commission that all the existing
meters should be replaced by electronic meters. We do not see any
G illegality therein.
40. Various steps had been taken by the respondent No. 2 to resolve
the grievances of the consumers. Grievance Redressal Forum was
established in terms of Section 42(5) of the 2003 Act. Regulations made
in the year 2002 provided for detailed guidelines in regard to the
H
SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 69
[SINHA,J.]
r
procedures required to be followed by the utilities for providing new A
connections, replacement of defective meters etc. The said regulations
admittedly were amended in 2003 providing for payment of compensation
to consumers in case of repeated levy of arrears for bills already paid. If
there had been any violation of the meter and billing regulation, the utilities
could be imposed with penalties. It is at that stage, a policy decision was B
taken for replacement of old electromechanical meters with new electronic
.., meters as a part of the Scheme. The Commission in its Order on Annual
y
Revenue Requirement issued directions with regard to replacement of
meters which were carried out pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof,
which reads as under: c
"Replacement of meters is the responsibility ofthe DISCOMs and
the DISCO Ms have submitted details of the meter replacement
programme to the Commission, the Commission would like to
infom1 the objector that the old electromechanical meters are
subject to mechanical wear and tear and tend to record lower D
/ conswnption over a period of time. Moreover, these meters ar~
also more susceptible to tamper. The replacement of such meters
-" with electronic meters will enable the utility to record the
consumption more accurately as well as reduce the chances of
tampe1ing. The DISCOMs have submitted that the existing meters E
are being replaced by the electronic meters which is a good step."
41. Under the 1948 Act, the State had a role to play. Its directions
in relation to the policy matters were binding on the State Electricity
Boards. Such a power continued to be operative. If, therefore, the F
'f
Electricity Regulatory Commission which was an independent body could
r make tariff and for that purpose had the statutory authority to issue certain
directions, no exception thereto can be taken.
42. We, therefore, are required to consider as to whether the
authority to make such replacement of meter by the licensee is contained G

(
._ in Section 20 of the 1910 Act or not. Even if a harmonious construction
is given to the Scheme of the Indian Electricity Act as was submitted by
Mr. Parikh, we do not see as to how Section 26 would govern Section
20 of the 1910 Act.
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 43. Section 20 operate in one field namely conferring a power of
entry on the licensee. The said provision empowers the licensee inter alia
to alter a meter which would include replacement of a meter. It is an
independent general provision. In absence of any statutory provision, we
do not see any reason to put a restrictive meaning thereto. Even under
B the General Clauses Act, a statutory authority while exercising statutory
power may do all things ~hich are necessary for giving effect thereto.
There does not exist any provision in any of the statutes referred to
hereinbefore which precludes or prohibits the licensee to replace one set
of meter by another. If such a provision is read into the statute, the same
c would come in the way of giving effect to the benefits of new technological
development. Creative interpretation of the provisions of the statute
demands that with the advance in science and technology, the Court
should read the provisions of a statute in such a manner so as to give
effect thereto.
D [See State ofMaharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai & Anr.,
[2003] 4 sec 6011
44. Section 26 of the Act operates in different fields. It comes into
being only when there exists a dispute. The dispute may be in regard to
E the quantum ofthe amount required to be expended for removing the meter
or the correctness of the meter. The dispute may also be, in the event,
the meter is held to be not recording the consumption of electrical energy
correctly, the amount to which the consumer would be liable to pay, in
relation thereo.
F 45. Electrical Inspector acts as a statutory authority. He has been
conferred with a quasi-judicial power to determine the disputes of
particular kinds. His decision thereupon is final and conclusive. The
correctness of such decision can be questioned only before a superior
court of law. Subject of course to a decision of a superior court, the
G decision of the Electrical Inspector is final and binding on the parties.
'46. It is correct that the matter at the relevant point of time was not
covered by any statutory regulations, but even otherwise, the respondent
had the said authority under Section 20 of the 1910 Act.
H 47. Construction of Section 20 vis-a-vis Section 26 of the 1910
1
j
SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED 71
[SINHA,J.]
Act came up for consideration before this Court in Belwal Spinning Mills A
Ltd And Ors. v. UP. State Electricity Board And Anr., [1997] 6 SCC
740, wherein a Division Bench of this Court clearly opined;
"37. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the cases in these appeals and the submissions a
made by Mr. Gupta, Mr. Sen and Mr. Andhyarujina, the learned
Solicitor General, it appears to us that Section 20 of the Electricity
Act authorises the licensee to enter the premises of the consumer
to remove fittings and other apparatus installed by the licensee.
y Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 authorises the licensee C
to enter the premises of the consumer for "inspecting, testing,
repairing or altering the electric supply lines, meters, fittings, works
and apparatus for the supply of energy belonging to the licensee".
The licensee, therefore, cannot only enter the premises of the
consumer for inspecting, testing etc. but the licensee can also alter
the meter whenever such alteration is needed. Such power under D
Section 20 does not depend on the adjudication of correctness of
the meter and other apparatus by the Electrical Inspector on a
reference under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. But such
power flows from the statutory duties and functions of the licensee
to maintain the correct meter for recording the quantum of electricity E
supplied to the consumer. Such duty to ensure maintenance of
correct meter in the premises of the consumer has been indicated
in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 26. The power
of removing the meter under Section 20, however, is circumscribed
by the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 26 only when the F
dispute as to the functioning of the meter has been referred to the
Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26. A licensee
is authorised under sub-section (7) of Section 26 to place, in
addition to the meter installed in the premises of the consumer as
referred to in sub-section (I) of Section 26, other meter or 0
apparatus as the licensee deems fit for the purpose of recording
or regulating the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. Such
power also does not depend on the existence of any dispute as to
the correctness of the meter installed."
H
\

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
t
A 48. Reliance on the said decision has also been placed by the High
Court. Mr. Parikh, however, would submit that the High Court failed to
notice paragraph 48 of the said decision wherein it was laid down that
Section 26(6) would apply where the meter is not correct and the power
to remove the meter could be exercised only in such a situation and not
B otherwise.
49. We may, howeve:r, notice that the observations made in
paragraph 48 were made while considering the question as to whether
the decision in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 26 should be limited
to a statutory period or not. Observations in paragraph 48 of the said
C decision having been made in the aforementioned context, the same cannot
be said to have any application whatsoever in the instant case.
50. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that
there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. 'There shall be
D no order as to costs.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.
--\.