Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Balwant Singh vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors on 8 June, 2016
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1 08.06.2016
11 & 12.
as M.A.T.711 of 2015 With C.A.N.1225 of 2016 With C.A.N.1626 of 2016 Balwant Singh Versus C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors.
With M.A.T.571 of 2016 With C.A.N.3438 of 2016 Balwant Singh Versus C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Narayan Ch. Mondal, Mrs. Sunanda Sil.
...for the Appellant.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai.
...for the CESC.
In Re: CAN 1626 of 2016 With CAN 3438 of 2016.
Both the appeals are barred by time. Causes being sufficient, delays are condoned and both the appeals are taken on record.
Both the applications for condonation of delay are, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
In Re: M.A.T.711 of 2015 With C.A.N.1225 of 2016 With 2 M.A.T.571 of 2016 With C.A.N. 3438 of 2016.
Both the appeals are taken up together for hearing. The writ petitioner filed W.P.13981 (W) of 2002 challenging disconnection of electricity. An order was passed on 30th September, 2002 directing the licensing Company to remove the meter after sealing the same in the presence of the petitioner and sending the same for testing to the Head of the Metallurgical Department, Jadavpur University. He was directed to examine the meter and submit a report. As per direction of the Court, upon payment of 50% of the assessed amount, the electricity connection will be restored.
Final order of assessment was passed on 3rd November, 2003 on the basis of the test report filed by the Metallurgical Department, Jadavpur University. The final order of assessment was challenged by way of statutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed. This order of the appellate authority was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the present writ petition. One of the grounds urged before the learned Single Judge was that the direction on the Metallurgical Department, Jadavpur University to test the meter was not in accordance with law and it is the Electrical Inspector who should have been directed to test the meter. The learned Judge held that the order dated 30th September, 3 2002 directing the Metallurgical Department, Jadavpur University was not challenged by the petitioner although the same was passed in the presence of the petitioner and the same has attained finality. Hence, such ground cannot be agitated at this stage. Learned Judge considered the records of the case and found that the appellate authority had considered all the relevant papers and the decision of the authority could not be faulted. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The primary ground on which the appeal is preferred is that it is the Electrical Inspector who should have tested the meter and not the Metallurgical Department, Jadavpur University.
Learned Counsel for the licensing authority has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. Vs. A. P. State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (1998) 4 SCC 470, where the Hon'ble Court unequivocally held that only where there is allegation of defect in the meter concerned, the Electrical Inspector is required to test the meter and in case of pilferage or malpractice, the Electrical Inspector has no jurisdiction to test the meter.
In the present case, there is no allegation by the writ petitioner that the concerned meter is defective. The meter was sent for testing to find out whether there was malpractice or pilferage. 4 Hence, in our opinion, there was nothing irregular in the order dated 30th September, 2002 directing the Metallurgical Department, Jadavpur University to test the meter and file a report. Further, the said order or the report has not been challenged.
We agree with the learned Single Judge that there is no scope of interference with the order of the appellate authority.
At this stage, it is submitted on behalf of the C.E.S.C. Ltd. that although it is recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge that upon payment of 50% of the assessed amount, the electricity connection will be restored, the fact is that no amount was paid by the writ petitioner. The reconnection of electricity was effected by the writ petitioner himself.
We make it clear that if the writ petitioner does not pay the dues of the licensing Company, the Company will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with the procedure and law prescribed.
Accordingly, both the appeals fail and dismissed. In view of the above, all the connected applications are also dismissed.
(Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice) ( Arijit Banerjee, J.) 5