M/s Swastik Industries vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others

Hon''ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner has a rice mill having a 60 HP connection. On 12th August, 1992, the Electricity Department made a surprise checking and found that the seal of the meter was broken though the connection was found to be in order. The Inspection Team also found that there was water inside the meter and accordingly, directed the CT to be tested. The CT ratio was subsequently checked and on that basis, a bill dated 4th February, 1993 was passed for a sum of Rs. 4,03,174.06. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this assessment bill, filed an appeal, which was dismissed. The appellate authority, however, remitted the matter back to the Executive Engineer to pass a fresh assessment order in the light of the observation made in the order. Based on the direction of the appellate authority dated 9.11.1994, a fresh assessment order dated 28.11.1994 was passed for a sum of Rs.2,51,640.31. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the assessment order as well as the appellate order, filed the present writ petition.

Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the respondents.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Checking Team had found the seal of the meter to be broken and for this fault, the petitioner could at best be penalized under Rule 138 read with Rule 56 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the said provision is not applicable and that the assessment order has been passed under Regulation 22(B) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, which have been made in exercise of the powers under Sections 49 and 79 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. According to the respondent, since water was found in the meter, the seal was broken and when the seal was again placed, it was observed that the consumption of electricity was higher than what the consumer was using prior to the inspection and on the basis of that ratio, made a fresh assessment under Regulation 22 (B) of the Regulations. It was urged that Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 was not applicable and in a case where theft of energy was found, the assessment was required to be carried out under Regulation 22(B) of the Regulations.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, it is clear that the petitioner admits that the seal was broken and water was found in the meter. The water being found in the meter and the seal being broken indicates dishonest intention of the petitioner to extract electricity illegally and when a comparative chart of the electricity consumed earlier and subsequently after the inspection was prepared, it was found that the petitioner was consuming more energy which led to a presumption that the petitioner was extracting energy illegally. This being a question of fact and based on relevant evidence, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in a writ jurisdiction. Further, this Court is not inclined to interfere in such finding of fact which is neither perverse nor anything to that effect has been brought on record. A clear case of theft of energy was found out for which Regulations of 1984 were rightly invoked and the assessment order was passed under Regulation 22(B) of the Regulations.

Insofar as Rule 138 read with Rule 56 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, is concerned, the imposition of fine under this Section is made only where there is no finding on theft of energy. Consequently, the said provision is not applicable.

This Court further finds that the petitioner has conveniently challenged the order of the appellate order dated 09.11.1994 by placing an extract of it and on that basis, has made various averments in the writ petition that no application of mind was made by the appellate authority. The counter affidavit encloses the correct and detailed order of the appellate authority, which has not been rebutted by the petitioner. The Court is, accordingly, of the opinion that the petitioner has deliberately not filed the correct copy of the impugned appellate order. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.