Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It was alleged by the plaintiff that on 16th June, 2007 in the absence of the plaintiff or any of his authorized representatives, the defendant carried out an inspection of the hospital and alleged that electric appliances of load of 51.546 KW were physically connected with BSES supply system. This conclusion was arrived at by taking into consideration each and every electric appliance found available at the hospital premises and some more electrical items exaggerated by the defendant in their list. The defendant further made out a case of direct theft against the plaintiff by alleging that two number of black colour wires were in use for tapping electricity from the BSES mains.

7. In the seizure memo prepared by the defendant, inspectors showed the following material seized from the site:

e) Single core black colour aluminium wire mm =

f) Single core black colour aluminium wire 10 mm =

8. The plaintiff submitted that the single core black wires were in fact wires connected to the generators and had been wrongly mentioned as cables being used for tapping illegal electricity. The nearest BSES electricity supply pole is almost 100 meters away from the site of the generators and the meter placed at the hospital premises are another 100 meter away from the generators. As such there could be no possibility of theft of electricity with the cables found at the site that were not more than 24 X 2 meters in length. The bill raised by the defendant dated 5th July, 2007 amounting to Rs.34,23,386/- is highly malicious and mischievous as the inspecting team of the defendant falsely implicated the plaintiff in a case of theft of electricity. The inspecting team did not even enter the OT as may be verified from the videography and photography. It was reported on 16 th June, 2007 that plaintiff is using an excessive load of 51.546 KW. The inspecting team carried out inspection of the premises which is not even a part of the hospital premises. The defendant inspected different premises i.e. RZ F- 5 where two generators are placed for the use of the medical centre.

10. Counsel for the defendant has made her submissions mainly on the following points :-

"a) The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the „Act‟) as this case is covered under Section

b) A joint and duly authorized inspection team of the defendant had inspected the plaintiff‟s premises on 16th June, 2007. During the inspection it was found that the entire supply was running through two wires which were directly connected to the nearby BSES LV mains.

(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply."

25. Let us now examine the relevant facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that a joint and duly authorized inspection team had inspected the plaintiff‟s premises on 16 th June, 2007 and as per the case of the defendant during the inspection it was found that the entire supply was running through two wires which were directly connected to the nearby BSES LV mains. It is a matter of fact that a detailed speaking order was passed by the defendant on 30th July, 2007 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant on 20 th July, 2007. Not only that the appellant prior to the filing of the suit filed a writ petition being WP (C) No.5124/2007 to give an opportunity of hearing to him as well as filed another writ petition being WP (C) No.731/2008 for passing fresh speaking order which was passed on 15th January, 2008. The complaint of theft of electricity is also pending against the appellant before the special court set up under the Act as per the submission of the defendant.