Afzal Husain vs Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 23 May, 1996

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Afzal Husain vs Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 23 May, 1996

Equivalent citations: AIR1997ALL297, AIR 1997 ALLAHABAD 297, 1997 ALL. L. J. 1467, 1997 (2) CIVILCOURTC 6, 1997 (1) ALL WC 466, 1997 (3) LJR 394

1. In ihis petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sri Afzal Husain has prayed for the quashing of the assessment bills in question (vide Annexure 1), for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite-parties not to give effect to the said assessment bills (Annexure 1) and to restore the electric supply to his ice factory till such time as the Chief Electrical Inspector decides the dispute and till the petitioner defaults or neglects to pay the amount legally due from him and for other consequential reliefs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short the Board), through its Chairman, Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division (Residency), Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking, Lucknow and Chief Electrical Inspector, U.P. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow are arrayed as opposite-parties in the petition.

2. The case of the petitioner, sans unnecessary details, may be slated thus : The petitioner runs an ice factory, which was set up in 1989. The electricity connection to the said factory was energised after due sanction of the Board, opposite party No. 1. The petitioner's ice factory has a sanctioned load of 90 H.P. The petitioner paid in full the electricity charges as per the bills served on him from time to time and no amount was legally outstanding on 11-10-1995 when the electricity supply of the petitioner's factory was suddenly disconnected. Such disconnection, contends the petitioner, is in gross violation of the provisions in Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act), which provides, inter alia that a notice for disconnection of electricity can only be issued where any peson neglects to pay charges for energy due from a licensee in respect of supply of energy to him. In the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had neglected to pay charges for energy or any other sum due to be paid to the Board, supply to his factory could not have been disconnected. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Board has illegally raised assessment bills suo motu allegedly on the basis of an inspection made on 27-9-1995 without any notice to the petitioner. A copy of the Inspection Report dated 27-9-1995 with the endorsement made on behalf of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition. Referring to the endorsement therein, the petitioner contends that the observation/finding by the authority recorded in the report regarding slow running of the meter was disputed by him. The assessment bill as per Annexure 3 has been prepared suo motu and without any reference to the petitioner though he had seriously disputed the finding recorded during the alleged inspection on 27-9-1995. On the basis of the illegal presumption assessment bill for Rs. 10,21,141.72 (Annexure 3) has been raised. The petitioner contends that the entire action of the Board and its functionaries is vitiated being in blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that though the Board was legally obliged under Section 26(4) and (6) of the Act to refer the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector for determining correctness of the meter since a dispute has been raised on behalf of the petitioner on the inspection note itself, no action in that regard was taken and even before the time granted in the bill for payment of the amount by 19-10-1995 was over, the supply of electricity to the petitioner's factory was suddenly discontinued in the morning of 11-10-1995. By such arbitrary and illegal action of the Board ana its functionaries, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced. By the letter dated 15-10-1995 (Annexure 5), the petitioner made a request to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribu-tion Division (Residency), Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking, Lucknow, opposite-party No. 2 to forthwith restore supply of electricity to his factory and also requested the Board to refer the matter pertaining to the alleged slow running of the meter to the Chief Electrical Inspector; but no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner. After service of the notice dated 15-10-1995, the petitioner has referred the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the running of the meter. The Assessment bill prepared during the pendency of the dispute before the Chief Electrical Inspectoris against the statutory provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act. In such compelling circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeing the reliefs notified earlier.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Shankar Singh, Assistant Engineer (Revenue) Electricity Distribution Division Urban, Lucknow Electric Supply Undertakings, Lucknow, on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, the allegations made and contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition have been refuted. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that there was no illegal disconnection of the electricity of the petitioner's unit, nor there was any breach of the provisions of the Act. According to the opposite-panics, disconnection in the case of the petitioner's unit was done on the basis of the checking made by the vigilance party on 27-9-1995 when it was found that plastic seal from the meter box was missing and all paper seals were with fake signatures and one polarity of CT was found reversed and after correcting the polarity of CT meter was recording actual consumption which was more than what was found recorded previously; it was noticed that the petitioner was consuming electricity unauthorisedly and by interfering with the CT wire, the meter was recording two-third less consumption than the actual consumption, it is the further case of the opposite-parties that when the meter was opened and tested it was found that one polarity was reversed; and thereafter the polarity was corrected; the opposite parties contend that on account of reversed polarity, the meter was recording only one-third consumption than the actual consumption. This checking was done before Assistant Engineer (Meter): According to the opposite-parties from the aforementioned report it way clear that the petitioner was using electric-ity unauthorisedly and committed theft of elec-tricity. A first information report was also lodged against the petitioner under Section 39 of the Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite-parties contend that in these circum-stances the Board was justified in disconnecting supply of electricity to the petitioner's unit and was also entitled to raise assessment bill in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 (for short the Regulations). The petitioner is liable to pay the amount as per the demand raised in the Annexure 3, but he has failed to pay the said amount. It is also contended by the opposite-parties that since the petitioner was found to be using electricity unauthorisedly and was committing theft of elect tricity, therefore, the Board was entitled to dis-connect the supply under Regulation 22 of the Regulations, The opposite-parties further con-tend that Section 24 of the Act has no application to the case of the petitioner and his case is gov-erned by Section 39 of the Act read with Regula-tion 22. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the assessment as per Annexure 3, it is open to him to file an appeal before the Revised Committee under Regulation 23(ii) of the Regulations. According to the opposite-parties the disconnection of supply of electricity to the petitioner's unit was done for non-payment of amount of assessment bill and also on account of theft of energy.

4. On the case pleaded by the parties, the gist of which has been discussed above, the point that arises for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case disconnection of supply of electricity to the petitioner's factory was legal and justified? The further question that requires consideration is whether the petitioner was en titled to a notice under Section 26(4) and (6) of the Act before disconnection of power to his unit, or the opposite-parties were competent to discon nect supply of power to his unit without such notice under Regulations 22 and 23 of the Regu lations?

5. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the case, it will be helpful to notice some relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Section 24, which makes provision regarding discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge, provides, inter alia, that where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy,or any sum other than a charge-for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seyen clear-days' police in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. In sub-section (2) of the said Section it is provided that where any difference or dispute which by or under the Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the power conferred by this Section until the Inspector has given his decision. Under the proviso to this sub-section an exception is made; and it is laid down that the sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with Electrical Inspector of the amount of the licensee's charge or other sums in dispute or for the depositof the licensee's further charges for energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request.

Section 26 makes, provision regarding meters. In sub-section (1)of the said Section il is provided that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the eleclrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter; provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter. In sub-sections (2) and (3) provision is made to keep the meter correct by the licensee if it is the property of the licensee and by the consumer if it is the property of the consumer. In case the licensee defaults in maintaining the meter correctly, the consumer will cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter and in case the consumer commits a similar default, the licensee may, after giving him 7 days' notice, cease to supply energy through. the meter so long as the default continues. In sub-section (4) it is laid down that the licensee or any person duly authorised by the licensee shall, at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer of his inten-tion, have access to and be at liberty to inspect and test, and for that purpose, if he thinks fit, take off or remove, any meter referred to in sub-section (1); and, except where the meter is so hired as aforesaid, all reasonable expenses of, and incidental to, such inspecting, testing, taking off and removing shall, if the meter is found to be otherwise man correct, be recovered from the consumer; and, where any difference or disputearises as to the amount of such reasonable expenses, the matter shall be referred to an Electrical Inspector, and the decision of such an Inspector shall be final. In the proviso to the said sub-section it is laid down that the licensee shall not be at liberty to take off or remove any such meter if any difference or dispute of the nature described in sub-section (6) has arisen until the matter has been determined as therein provided. Sub-section (5) of this section provides, inter alia, that the consumer shall not connecl any meter referred to in sub-section (1) with any electric supply line through which energy is supplied by a licensee, or disconnect the same from any such eleclric supply line, but he may by giving not more than forty-eigbt hours notice in writing to the licensee' rgquire the licensee to connect or disconnect such meter and on receipt of any such requisition, the licensee shall comply with it within the period of the notice. Sub-seclion (6), which is strongly relied upon by the petitioner, lays down that where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application by either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinionof such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity. Under the proviso to this sub-section provision is made that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under the sub-seclion, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do. Sub-'section (7) is not relevant for the purposes of the present case. The Explanation to this sub-sectipn'pro-vides that a meter shall be deemed to be "correct" if it registers the amount of energy supplied, or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, within the prescribed limits of error, and the maximum demand indicator or other apparatus referred to in sub-section (7) shall be deemed to be "correct" if it complies with such conditions as may be prescribed in the case of any such indicalor or other appartus.

6. Coming to the Regulation, which is framed in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 49 and 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the provisions relevant for the purpose of the present case are Regulations 21, 22 and 23.

Regulation 21 contains provisions regarding meters. In Clause (iii)(a) of the said. Regulation it is laid down that if at any time a meter becomes defective or ceases to register the consumption and no theft or malpractice is suspended, the electrical energy consumed by the consumer during the period the meter remained defective or stopped shall be determined on the basis of average consumption of the preceding three consecutive months. In Clause (vii) it is laid down that if the consumer opts to gel the meter checked up through Electrical Inspector to Government.U. P. in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, the consumer shall not withhold payment of the bills as are sent by the supplier: anv default in payment of bills will make the consumer liable for disconnection.

Regulations 22 and 23, which are strongly relied upon by the Board, are quoted hereunder :--

"22. Discontinuance of supply in case of malpractice and pilferage of electricity

(a) Malpractice

(i) If atany time, the energy supplied under one rate schedule is used for a purpose for which a higher tariff is applicable, the whole of the energy registered as consumed during the last six months from the date of detection, wilt be charged at the rate schedule as applicable for such use of energy. The imposition of this liability will not relieve the consumer from any penalty imposed by law for such misuse of energy besides the disconnection of supply.

The difference of the amount billed under higher tariff and lower tariff shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of computing consumer's liability to pay monthly/annual minimum guarantee.

(ii) If at any time the consumer is found adopting any appliance or using the energy supplied to him for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was supplied or dealing with it in any manner so as to unduly or improperly interfere with the efficient supply of energy to any other person by the supplier, the supplier may without prejudice to its other rights under the agreement or under these Regulations or under the provisions of the Electricity Act, disconnect the supply without any notice.

(iii) If at any time the consumer is found exceeding the contracted load without specific permission of the Supplier in case of connection up to 75 kw (100 B.H.P.) the Supplier may, without prejudice to its other rights under the agreement or under these Regulations or under the provisions of the Electricity Acl, estimate the value of the electrical energy, so abstracted, consumed or used, as per guidelines given in Annexure-I and may also disconnect the supply without notice.

(iv) If at any time the consumer is found using the energy to any service which is disconnected by the supplier including illegal restoration of the consumer own disconnected service, the supplier may without prejudice to its other rights under the agreement or under these Regulations or under the provision of Electricity Act may charge the entire consumption of electrical energy, provided metered correctly, so abstracted, consumed or used at thrice the rate per unit of the rate schedule applicable to such consumption and may also disconnect the supply without notice.

Similarly if at any time the consumer is found extending supply of electrical energy to other premises with the intent of sale of energy or otherwise, the supplier may without prejudice to his rights under the agreement or under these Regulations or under the provisions of the Act may disconnect the supply without any notice till the consumer removes the extension to the satisfaction of the supplier and pays disconnection and reconnection charges as applicable from time to time.

(b) Theft of energy Where a fake or tampered meter body seal is detected or where there is evidence that consumer had dishonestly abstracted, consumed, used or wasted energy or otherwise established to the satisfaction of the supplier, that a consumer has in any manner abstracted, consumed or used electrical energy dishonestly, the supplier may eslimate the value of the electrical energy so abstracted, Consumed or used as per guidelines given in Annexure-I and may also disconnect the supply without notice. The imposition of this liability will not relieve the consumer from any penalty imposed by law for such misuse of energy besides the disconnection of supply.

(c) The representative of the Supplier who will -get me supply so disconnected shall be an officer nut below the rank of an Assistant Engineer who shall issue a letter to the consumer giving details of such malpractice, pilferage, dishonest abstraction or irregular use of energy detected.

(d) The supply shall remain disconnected till such malpractice, pilferage or irregular use of energy is given up, the means thereof are removed or got regularised by obtaining sanction from competent authority and observing all other necessary formalities, as may be required to the entire satisfaction of the supplier and assessment bill along with all outstanding arrear together with the disconnection and reconnection fee is deposited by the consumer. The bills of assessment shall be provided to the consumer at the earliest from the date of detecting such offence.

23. Assessment and Appeal

(i) The Executive Engineer shall finalise all the assessment cases after giving an opportunity to the consumer to state his point of view.

(ii) If the consumer is dissatisfied with the assessment so made, he may within 15 days of the receipt of assessment bill, appeal to the Revised Committee. The memorandum of appeal shall be in legible writing on Fool's cap paper in triplicate duly signed by the consumer. All materials on which the applicant (consumer) seeks to rely for purposes of his appeal, shall be sent along with the memorandum of appeal.

(III) The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal after considering the submission of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal, the material placed before him by the appellant and the enquiry records. It shall not be obligatory for the appellate authority to give a personal hearing, but if a request is made in that behalf he may grant such hearing to the appellant. The appellant may be represented at such hearing by a legal practitioner or any person duly authorised in that behalf.

(iv) The appellate authority may : . . (a) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, or

(b) set aside the assessment and order fresh disposal of the case with or without further enquiry, or

(c) conduct a further enquiry itself or call for a report from the lower authorities and dispose of the appeal in the light of such further enquiry or report, or

(d) pass such other orders as it deems fit.

Provided that no orders adverse to the con sumer shall be passed without giving notice and opportunity for a written representation to the consumer.

Provided further that if the consumer fails to turn-up in spite of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard the appellate authority may proceed ex parte and decide the case on merits. ,

(v) The appellate authority shall give reasons for his conclusions except in cases where the appeal is allowed in toto. The order in appeal shall be final and binding on the consumer.

(vi) The period of assessment for malpractice and pilferage of electricity or dishonest abstrac-

tion of energy or other irregular use of energy shall be in accordance with the procedure laid down in Annexure-I. Provided that the inspection of the meter made by the meter reader or other representative of the Board for the purposes of meter reading shall not be deemed as inspection of the installation.

(viii) For the inspection of malpractice, pilferage or theft of energy, the supplier's representa-tive shall have the right to access to the premises of the consumer at any time, it is needed. The supplier's representative, before entry into the premises, shall disclose his identity and thereafter enter into the premises and the consumer shall not detain him in performing the duty. Any obstruc-tion caused in inspection of the premises will make liable the connection to be summarily disconnected forthwith besides such other actions as are permissible under these Regulations.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aditya Rotor Spin (P) Ltd., Kanpur v. U.P. Stale Electricity Board, Lucknow, AIR 1991 All 196 negatived the contention that Regulation 22 vests unguided and unbridled power in the Board and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and held that the power under Regulation 22 to disconnect the electric supply without notice can be resorted to only if there is evidence that consumer had dishonestly, abstracted, consumed, used or wasted, energy or otherwise established to the satisfaction of the supplier that the consumer has in any manner abstracted, consumed or used ejec-trical energy dishonestly: the Regulations lay down sufficient guidelines and precise situations in which such a power is to be exercised, it is not that in every case the Board has not power to disconnect the electric supply; it is only in the situations enumerated in Regulation 22 that such a power can be exercised; therefore, Regulation 22 cannot be struck down on the ground that it is arbitrary or violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. This Court further held that it is well settled that in cases of extreme urgency where public interest would be jeopardised by the delay involved in a hearing, a hearing before condemnation would not be required by the principles of natural justice; in such situations a post decisional hearing, wherever possible, would satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice.

The point in issue has also engaged the attention of the Apex Court from time to time. In the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V. Smt. Basantibai,(1988) 1 SCC23 :(AIR 1988 SC71) the Apex Court ruled that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in subjection (1) of S. 26 of the Act is or is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the eleclricity consumed, has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upor application made by either of the parties under sub-sec. (6); if there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer of the electrical uuaniity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-sec. (6); such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of S. 26(6) of the Act; the Electrical Inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud; it is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, that can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the Act; if the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual con-

sumption of electrical energy, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months; but pending the determination of the dispute as to correctness of the meter by the Electrical Inspector, the State Electricity Board is neither competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the consumer nor competent to issue notice to the consumer threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill. It is relevant to note here that the factual position in that case, as appears from the judgment, was that on 18-2-1983 the meter was burnt and this was brought to the notice of the Assistant Engineer of the zone wherein the petitioner's industry was situated; the question of fraud was not even indicated to the respondent consumer; and it was raised for the first time in the return to the writ petition. Considering these facts the Madhya Pradesh High Court had quashed the notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of supplementary bill before seeking reconnection or restoration of supply holding it to be illegal and had directed the respondents to reconnect and restore the .supply by installing another meter. The Apex Court summed up its decision in the following words (para 13 of AIR) :--

"We are however, unable to accept this contrary view as it is obvious from the provisions of S. 26. sub-sec. (6) of the Act that dispute whether a meter is correct or faulty would come under the said provisions and not the dispute regarding tampering of meter. In our view, the view taken about the scope of S. 26(6) in the decisions cited above are correct. In the instant case the djspute relates to whether the meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil mill of the respondent. So this dispute squarely foils within the provisions of the said Act and as such it has been rightly found by the High Court that it is the Electrical inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. Appellant 1 is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The Board is also not competent to prepare and send supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by thg respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy. For the reasons aforesaid we affirm the order of High Court and dismiss the appeal without costs."

In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ajanta Iron and Steel Company (Pvt.) Limited 1990 SCC (Crl.) 370: (1990) 2 SCC 659 : (AIR 1990 SC 882) in which the allegation of theft of electricity after tampering with the seats affixed to the meters was made against the consumer, the lower appellate court had decreed the consumer's suit on the sole ground of non-service of notice as required under condition No. 36 in regard to supply of electricity by the Municipal Corporation and the Delhi High Court summarily dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation with the following observations/findings (Para 4 of AIR) :

"The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in steeling electricity, the Court should in its discretion refuse to issue a direction for restoration of theelcctric supply. Weare afraid, it is not possible to agree with the appellant for more reasons than one. The plaintiff is seriously denying the allegation of theft and it is not possible to assume the accusation as correct without a full-fledged trial on this issue. The case of Jagannath Singh v. B. S. Ramaswamy (1966) 1SCR 885 : AIR 1966 SC 849: 1966 Cri LJ 697 relied upon on behalf of the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the consumer in that case was convicted under the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction was being maintained in appeal.

Besides, the service of notice is a pre-requisite for disconnection, and the appellant cannot he allowed to go back upon its words and refuse the consumer the benefit of notice as contemplated by the agreement. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Delhi Electric Supply undertaking will seriously suffer if this view is upheld. We do not understand as to what is the difficulty in the way of appellant to serve a notice on the consumer before disconnecting the supply. It has to be appreciated that the licensee undertaking is performing a public duty and is governed by a special statute and the law also contemplates service of a notice before disconnection of supply of electricity. The Courts below have made it clear that they have not examined the case on merits. The question whether, the allegations of theft are true or not has to be examined and decided in an appropriate proceeding, and the appellant will not, therefore, be prejudiced by the present judgment in its claim. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but, without costs."

8. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it was not disputed before us that no notice was served on the petitioner by the Board before disconnecting the supply of electricity to his industrial unit that no intimation containing the allegations of fraud was given by the competent authority before disconnection of electricity supply. The report submitted by the officer of the Board on testing the meter, which is said to have been drawn up in presence of the petitioner, contained his protest note refuting the allegation of fraud, manipulation/tampering of meter.

The case of the Board, as evident from the pleadings, is that on checking up the meter it was found that one polarity of C.T. reversed and the running of the meter was slow on account of which it was not correctly recording the electricity supplied to the petitioner. It is not stated in the counter-affidavit and no material is also placed before us to show that before supply of electricity to the petitioner's unit was disconnected, the competent authority, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before him, had been satisfied that the petitioner had dishonestly abstracted, consumed, used or wasted energy or it was otherwise established to the satisfaction of such author that the petitioner had in any manner abstracted, consumed or used electrical energy dishonestly. AH that is stated by the opposite parties is that at the time of checking the paper seals of the meter were found to be broken and one polarity CT was found to be reversed and that the meter was found to be. running slowly. It is yet to be investigated and established from any acceptable material by the appropriate authority that the petitioner was responsible for these facts and had done it to dishon-

esily benefit himself by drawing more power than was being recorded by the meter. The power to disconnect supply of electricity without a prior notice to the consumer being a very drastic power causing serious prejudice to the consumer must be strictly enforced. As observed by this Court in Adiiya Rotor Spin (P) Ltd. (AIR 1991 All 196) (supra) it is not in every case thai the Board had got power to disconnect the electricity supply; it has such power only in cases where it is satisfactorily established that the conditions laid down in Regulation 22 are fulfilled. It is relevant to slate here that it is also not the case of the Board that a post-decisional opportunity to have his say in the matter has been afforded to the petitioner and thereby principles of natural justice have been satisfied. It is also not the case of the Board that there is any stipulation in the agreement between the parties which enables it to disconnecl supply of eieciricity to the petitioner's factory in the manner it has been done.

9. Considering the fact situation of the case, the manner in which supply of eieciricity to the petitioner's factory has been disconnecled and bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decided cases noted earlier, it is our considered view that disconneciionof supply of electricity by the Board to the petitioner's factory cannol be sustained.

10. The question that remains to be considered is what relief can be granted to the petilioner at the present state? From the pleadings it appears that the petitioner had requested the Board to refer the matter to the Chief Elecirical Inspector to determine whelher the meter in the factory is correct or not. We, therefore, order that the Board or any functionary of the Board, who is competent to take decision in the matter, will consider the petitioner's representation, including the question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available is it a case of defective meter or theft and pass a reasoned order issuing appropriate direction according to the finding on the question. In the mean time, if the petitioner pays 50 per cent of the amount as per the supplementary bill (vide Annexure 3) and furnishes an undertaking to pay any further amount as determined by the competent aulhorily, power supply to the factory will be restored within 48 hours of fulfilment of these conditions The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

11. Order accordingly.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court