Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sardar Trilok Singh vs M.P.E.B. & Ors. on 7 July, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 7th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4549 of 2000
Between:-
SARDAR TRILOK SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS
LEGAL HEIR HARJOT SINGH, S/O. SHRI
RAJENDRA SINGH, PARTNER, GURU NANAK
COLD STORAGE AND ICE FACTORY, R/O. 16,
LAJPAT KUNJ, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
SARANSH KULSHRESHTHA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY
BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SHAKTI
BHAWAN, POST BOX NO. 34, JABALPUR-482008.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, JABALPUR REGION,
MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD,
SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE
OF THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, MADHYA
PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD, SHAKTI
BHAWAN, BHOPAL, M.P.
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CITY
CIRCLE), MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY
BOARD, MISSION COMPOUND, JABALPUR.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CITY DIVISION
(SOUTH), NAGPUR ROAD, OPPOSITE L.I.C. OF
INDIA, MADAN MAHAL, JABALPUR.
6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (GARHA TOWN),
MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD,
JABALPUR.
.....RESPONDENTS
(REPRESENTED BY : NONE )
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO
Date: 2022.07.11 10:41:25 IST
following:
ORDER
2 It is required to mention here that this matter is in the list of hearing parties since long and counsel for the respondents was repeatedly informed about listing of the case but nobody has come to attend the hearing. It appears that respondents, though have filed reply, but not interested to contest the matter and, therefore, on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and record available, this petition is heard finally.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the demand made by the respondents by way of Annexure P/8 dated 26.07.2000 asking the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 5,68,499/-.
Before resolving the dispute involved in this case, necessary facts in nutshell are that the petitioner is a Partnership Firm running Cold Storage in the name and style of "Guru Nanak Cold Storage and Ice Factory" established in the year 1997. The petitioner is having license from the State of M.P. under the provisions of M.P. Factory Rules, 1962. The respondent no.1 is a Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1984.
The petitioner is the consumer of electricity and got service meter connection from the respondent no.1 vide connection no. 90-03-20039 in the month of March, 1996. An agreement was also executed between the petitioner and respondent no.1 in respect of consumption of electricity and as per the said agreement, the petitioner was required to pay minimum charges for 7,440 units per month irrespective of consumption of electricity which could be less than the said upper limit fixed by the Board for payment of minimum charges.
Signature Not VerifiedThe employees of respondent no.1 got the electricity meter inspected in SAN Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO the month of December, 1999, i.e. on 29.12.1999 and prepared a report which Date: 2022.07.11 10:41:25 IST is Annexure P/2 in which everything was found intact and there was nothing 3 wrong found in the meter. Thereafter, within a period of 15 days, i.e. on 12.01.2000, again another inspection was done and report (Annexure P/3) was prepared by the employees of the respondent no.1 in which it was pointed out that there was some gap noticed in the glass fixed on the meter and through that gap, one thin iron wire can be inserted and as such, it was opined that there is some possibility of tempering with the meter and on the basis of such possibility, the electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected. Thereafter, the same was restored by getting payment of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner Firm. Finally, the petitioner received a notice of demand whereunder he has been asked to deposit Rs. 5,68,499/-, i.e. the demand made on 26.07.2000 (Annexure P/8).
Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the said demand is arbitrary and illegal because in the impugned demand notice, it is not shown as to how the amount demanded has been determined and the petitioner has been held responsible for the same. According to the learned counsel, there is no description as to under which head, the amount demanded has been charged by the respondent no.1. It is also not disclosed as to for what period, they have calculated the amount demanded by them. He further submits that there is no indication with certainty that the petitioner has tempered with the meter or played with the same mischievously with an intention to stole the electricity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under such a circumstance, the demand made by the respondent no.1 is illegal, not Signature Not Verified SAN sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.
Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2022.07.11 10:41:25 ISTRespondents have filed the reply but in the same, they have said nothing 4 specific despite the ground raised by the petitioner in the petition that in absence of any proper description with regard to calculation and demand made by the respondent no.1, it is considered to be illegal, nothing has been disclosed whereas it is said that on a presumption during the course of inspection, it was observed that there is every possibility of tempering with electric meter and, therefore, the demand has been made.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of record as also the reply submitted by the respondents, if report (Annexure P/3) is seen, it is clear that in Item No.13, the reason has been assigned as to why it was presumed that there is a possibility of tempering with the meter but only on the basis of presumption, it cannot be said that petitioner has tempered with the meter, however, the authorities were under obligation that before making any demand from the petitioner, first they should ascertain this fact as to whether any tempering has been done with the meter or not but that has not been done and only on the basis of some gap noticed with the glass fixed on the meter, it was presumed that something could have been done by the petitioner with the electric meter and, therefore, demand has been raised.
On perusal of report (Annexure P/3) which was the foundation of demand and the nature of demand made from the petitioner, I am of the opinion that such demand is unsustainable as there is no foundation of that. On a presumption, any such foundation cannot be led.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further informed that no case of theft has been registered against the petitioner and the demand is made without application of mind, without any calculation or justification by the respondents Signature Not Verified SAN only on the basis of inspection report, Annexure P/3 in which it was opined that Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2022.07.11 10:41:25 IST there is a possibility of tempering with the meter.
5I am not satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondents because despite raising specific ground in the petition challenging the demand notice, the respondents have not brought any details of calculation made by them so as to justify the demand of Rs. 5,68,449/-. It is not only difficult for the petitioner but for anybody to understand as to on what basis, this amount has been determined. Without there being any foundation or the manner in which it is determined, the said demand cannot be sustained because it could have been in crores even and a person from whom demand is being made not aware of the fact as to how this magic figure has come in the mind of the said authority. Therefore, the demand made by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonble and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Thus, the petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned demand notice dated 26.07.2000 issued by the respondents vide Annexure P/8 is accordingly quashed.
Since during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has died, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- so deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court dated 02.08.2000 shall be refunded to the legal heir of the petitioner.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2022.07.11 10:41:25 IST