Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) Thorough checking report of meters of all three consumers connected to the feeder alongwith the meter at the sending end, as per DGM's letter dated 15.05.2010.
4

(b) date of installing check meter at the premises of the respondent and the date of removing the check meter along with its Sealing Certificates.

(c) Tampering report of respondent's meter.

9) The Ombudsman has clearly mentioned in para 16 of the impugned order that the Corporation did not give direct answers to the above queries. It was further observed by the Ombudsman that in the absence of thorough checking report, meter tampering report and adverse check meter report, how did the Corporation come to the conclusion that the consumer-respondent had used the excess energy bypassing other two meters. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Corporation has issued the assessment bill in question in a casual manner and it was based on surmises and conjectures.

10) Moreover, three consumers (viz., M/s BB Ispat, M/s BTC Industries and M/s Bharamri Steels) were connected to 33 KV BB Ispat Feeder emanating from 132 KV sub-station Kichha. It has come on record that checking of all electric meters of above- named three consumers were not carried out and neither the checking report of the meter at the sub-station end nor the tamper report of the respondent's meter was provided to the Ombudsman. The Corporation was unable to give any explanation as to why it came to the conclusion that M/s BTC Industries alone was responsible for pilferage of electricity. In para 22 of the impugned order, it was specifically observed that there was no meter tampering report of the consumer (respondent herein). In order to find a wrongdoer, a check meter was also installed, in addition to regular meter installed in respondent's factory. The said check meter also recorded the same consumption as recorded by the regular meter of the respondent. In a particular period, there was less consumption of electricity in petitioner's factory due to the reason that the production of respondent's factory was minimum as the industry was under