High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2882/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the decision of the authori ty in the Assam State Electricity Board in upholding its earlier decision making the petitioner liable to pay compensation for the loss of energy. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Compa 2. nies Act, 1956, having its registered office at M.S. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati and factory at Pangram, Udarbond in the district of Cachar. The petitioner was sanctioned a load of 652 KW and a transformer was installed with the meter beari ng No. 15989/DPT/83 - 3 XII KV/110K/50/5A in the factory on or about 25/01/1988. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the ASEB in which the terms and c onditions for supply of energy was incorporated. Under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the respondents ar 3. e required to charge the petitioner for consumption of electricity as per the re ading of the meter. The petitioner as consumer is supplied with electricity by t he respondents through the meter installed and sealed by them. According to the petitioner, no representative of the petitioner was present at the time of insta llation of the CT terminal cover box. 4. On 20/10/2000 at about 1.00 pm, the MTI wing of the ASEB visited the f actory of the petitioner and made thorough inspection of the entire installation of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner including the electric meter and CT Terminal Cover Box. On the basis of the said inspection, the repor t bearing Sl. No. 1268 dated 20/10/2000 was prepared under the caption (cid:28)Report o f Inspection / Testing/renovation/new connection carried out at the consumers pr emises by the MTI Wing of the ASEB (cid:29). According to the petitioner, as per the rep ort, no illegality was detected in the installation of the CT Terminal Cover Box of the factory. The MTI Wing of the ASEB again visited the factory premises of the petitioner and carried out further inspection. According to the petitioner, the factory was closed on that day as it was a Sunday. It is the further case of the petitioner that the inspection was carried out without furnishing any intim ation to the petitioner and without inviting its representatives to be present i n the inspection. 5. In the report prepared on the basis of the inspection carried out on 24/ 12/2000, the following observation under the head (cid:28)General remarks on observatio n of testing/inspection (cid:29) was made :- (cid:28)Existing L.T. Meter connection checked and plaster Seal No. C 32353 fixed on C. T. Secondary box found cut. On opening the C.T. Terminal Cover box, it is found that insulation of C.T. Secondary wires found removed in all C.T.S. (6 wires) at C.T. Secondary Terminal Joints. This will help shorting C.T.S. thereby preventi ng the meter in recording actual consumption. Hence, it is a case of malpractice . The original condition of meter and C.T.S. kept as it is for future necessary action. A new H.T. Meter installed including New C.T.P.T., Seal and meter perfor mance checked found OK. (cid:29)
Legal Reasoning
After the aforesaid inspection and assessment, bill bearing No. 134/001 6. dated 19/01/2001 for Rs. 30,57,281.00 was raised by the respondents demanding th e petitioner to pay the same as compensation. Being aggrieved by the raising of the said bill, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 and the same was disposed of by order dated 19/11/2001 advising the Area Manager, B adarpur to serve a revised bill for the period w.e.f. 20/10/2000 to 24/12/2000 i nstead of 6(six) months. Pursuant to the said order, a revised assessment bill w as issued on 14/02/2002 but noticing the mistake therein, another revised assess ment bill was issued on 14/06/2002 demanding payment of Rs. 14,30,962/-. At the time of preferring the appeal, the petitioner had already paid Rs. 6,11,456/- an d thus the balance stood at Rs. 8,19,506/-.
Decision
7. Making a grievance against the aforesaid action on the part of the respo ndents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP( C) No. 4376/2002, which was disposed of by order dated 16/07/2002 with the direc tion to the respondents to consider the actual dispute raised and then to prepar e a proper bill. While disposing of the writ petition, it was observed recording the concession of the learned counsel for the parties that the Writ Court canno t go into the disputed questions of fact. It was only on the basis of the submis sion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it could agitate the gr ievance before the appellate authority in respect of the plea of lack of notice to the petitioner in respect of the inspection in question, the writ petition wa s disposed of. 8. Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 16/07/2002 in WP(C) No. 4 376/2002, the ASEB authority passed the Annexure-E order dated 02/04/2003 conclu ding that the petitioner was involved in tempering of the meter system and accor dingly was liable to pay compensation for the loss of energy assessed at Rs. 10, 78,484/-. The order also indicated that after deduction of the amount of Rs. 6,1 1,456/- already paid by the petitioner as noted above, the balance amount would be Rs. 4,67,028/- and accordingly a revised bill was issued to the petitioner (A nnexure-G). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred anot 9. her Writ petition being WP(C) No. 6388/2003 which was disposed of by order dated 24/05/2004 remanding the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh con sideration as it was contended that reasonable opportunity of being heard was no t provided to the petitioner. 10. After the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the appeal was re-heard and by the impugned order dated 08/09/2004, the same having been rejected, the p etitioner is once again before this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 11. I have heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. J. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB. I have also perused the entire materials on reco rd. 12. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted tha t the inspection in question having been carried out without the presence of the representative of the petitioner, based on the said inspection and the report t hereof, the ASEB authority could not have raised the bill in question, making th e petitioner liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount. Countering the sai d argument, Mr. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB questioning the maint ainability of the writ petition being involved with disputed questions of fact, also submitted that the petitioner being guilty of tempering with the meter read ing system, there is nothing wrong in imposing the penalty /compensation. In sup port of the submission made by Mr. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB, h e has placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) nd others. (ii) ) (iii) (iv) (v) Wood Products and another). (2003) 5 SCC 226 (J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board a (2006) 8 SCC 629 (Jagmodhan Mehatabsing Gujaral Vs. State of Maharashtra