Karnataka High Court
Oswal Plastics vs Karnataka Electricity Board on 2 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: ILR1990KAR1724, 1990(3)KARLJ389
ORDER Murlidher Rao, J.
1. Though the matter is posted for preliminary hearing have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is a proprietory concern doing manufacturing of various plastic products. He is supplied with power through R.R. No. W-3P/1643. His accounts are mentioned In Ledger Folio No. 134.
3. On 21st February 1990 at about 8-30 p.m. when the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board inspected the premises of the petitioner, he found that the consumer has inserted a thick flexible plastic sheet of paper in between the glass of the meter and the body of the top cover and thus making the meter defunct. Immediately the Officer concerned disconnected the power supply, by drawing a Mahazer. The Mahazer copy is produced as Annexure R-1. The incident of that date Is narrated thus:
"It was noticed that the power installation of M/s. Oswal Plastics was running at 8-30 p.m. On further inspection inside the premises it was noticed that the RR No. of the installation is W3P-1643 on verification of the Meter it was found that the consumer had inserted a thin flexible plastic sheet (a paper thick) between the glass of the meter and the body of the top cover and thus making the meter not recording. Immediately the workers of the factory were called and shown and the said thin plastic sheet inserted in the meter. There were three workers at the time when the premises was inspected. One person was sleeping on a cot near the entrance to the meter board. Immediately one of the workers pulled out the plastic sheet which was inserted in the meter and ran away from the spot along with other workers taking the plastic sheet that spoiling the evidence, since nobody were in the factory and the evidence was also removed the following observations were made and mahazer drawn."
4. The petitioner questions the correctness and validity of the act of cutting the power supply.
5. Mr. Ashok R. Kalyan Shetty, appearing for the Electricity Board justified the action. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Board, deponent reiterated the incident as mentioned above, and submitted that the act of the petitioner was in violation of the Regulation and therefore the Officer concerned was entitled to disconnect the power supply immediately. It is also stated in the statement of objections that a demand of Rs. 3,01,417.20 Ps on account of theft of energy and reconnection fee of Rs. 25/- has been demanded by sending demand notice to the petitioner through registered post as well as ordinary post, it is stated that the registered post was returned unserved, but the one sent by ordinary post is not returned. Therefore, it is contended that the demand notice is duly served on the petitioner.
6. In this petition I am not concerned with the demand notice issued to the petitioner on 24th February 1990. I am only concerned with the act of the Officer concerned who disconnected the installation on his inspecting the premises on 21st February, 1990.
7. Mr. H.S. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner depended on the following clause in Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988 ('Regulation' for short) and contended that before disconnecting the power supply, the Inspecting Officer must give show cause notice and disconnection cannot be resorted on the spot. Clause (c) of the Regulation 44.07 reads thus:
"Where any consumer or his agent or servant etc., is was found committing any of the offence mentioned above, Board reserves the right to disconnect the installation forthwith and without notice. However, the supply may be restored at the discretion of the Board if the consumer pays the deterrent charges demanded and/or takes such other action as may be directed to by the Board."
Clause (a) of the Regulation 44.07 reads thus:
"If any consumer obstructs Board's Officer from inspecting the premises at any time, to which supply is being given, the authorised officer of the Board may disconnect the supply forthwith and without notice and such obstruction shall be prime facie proof of prejudicial use of electricity and shall make the consumer liable to pay the deterrent charges as specified above."
The offences enumerated include misuse of electricity, unauthorised extension of supply and dishonest obstruction/use/consumption of electricity or interference with the metering equipment or accessories. Therefore, it is obvious that if any person is found committing any of these offences the Board reserves right to disconnect the installation forthwith and without notice. When such power is traceable to the above Clause, it is futile to contend that notice should have been given before disconnection is resorted to for the commission of the alleged offence.
8. Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause (a) of Regulation 44.07 which reads thus:
"Where it is prima facie established to the satisfaction of the authorised Officer of the Board that the consumer or his agent, servant etc., has committed/is committing an offence in terms of Section 39, 44 or of any other provision of the Act or these Regulations, such Officer shall estimate the value of the Electricity thus abstracted, used or wasted or diverted, in accordance with the calculation table prescribed from time to time, for a period of six months or for such other period as may be deemed justified in the circumstances of any given case at thrice the rate of tariff applicable to such category of installation or at thrice the normal tariff applicable to the purpose for which the energy is abstracted, used or consumed or wasted or diverted, whichever is higher and demand and collect the same including the same in the next bill or in a separate bill. Such amount shall be deemed to be arrears of electricity charges.
Apparently this clause is intended to estimate the loss caused to the Board by the alleged act and device adopted by consumer while Clause (c) empowers the Officer to take immediate action on the spot. Clause (a) deals with commission of offence resulting in pecuniary loss to the Board which need to be investigated. The words "to the satisfaction of the Officer are not found in Clause (c), which signifies that the moment it is 'found' that offence is committed, the action of disconnection has to follow. The words with or without notice in Clause (c) makes it manifest that it is not incumbent on the Authorities of the Board to issue notice to the consumer and record satisfaction before disconnecting the installation which he has to do forthwith. The word "finds" obviously connotes what is "actually seen" "notified" or "detected". It is something more than mere observation or suspicion or believe it to be done. This being specific power conferred on the Authority concerned, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend that notice should have been given before disconnecting the power supply. The provision is intended to stop the "mischief" detected. It prohibits the continuation of illegal act and safeguard, the proper use of energy and also the pecuniary interest of the Board. Indeed the consumer is caught while committing the offence, therefore, it is necessary to stop the operation forthwith. The Rule relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner because we are not dealing with a case coming under Clause 44.07 of the Regulation. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention. Accordingly Rule is discharged. Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.