Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted declaring that the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the Board suffers from the vice of non-application of relevant facts and misreading of provisions of law and the facts placed before it and thus illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
(D) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent-Board to produce before this Hon'ble Court the details viz. (1) locational details of all 5 seals provided on PT Control on 3rd October, 1993, (2) installation checking and MRT reports of the parallel meter i.e. Sanand GSS MTTL, feeder meter, (3) copy of sealing register of laboratory of petitioner's static meter installed near the petitioner's premises on 12th September 1995.

6. The order of the Appellate Committee dated 16-4-2002 has primarily upheld the charge of power theft by holding that as per the checking sheet dated 24-12-2001 it is mentioned that seal wire of TVM meter was found broken; that the seal wire provided on MMB Window was also found broken; that all the four seals provided on TVM meter are sealed with Galvanized iron wire whereas the seal wire provided on terminal cover was that of stainless steel which is a "doubtful point". The Appellate Committee also records that the laboratory test was also taken and found O.K. Thereafter, another checking was carried out on 17-1-2002, wherein it was observed that Seal wires of TVM meter, terminal cover and meter body seals differed from each other; that the wiring of PT secondary inside PT Trolley was found loose. Accordingly, all the seals from the MMB Window, metering panel, terminal cover, MMB etc. were collected along with metering cable and TVM meter for detailed inspection in the laboratory. That as per joint inspection report of 17-1-2002 at the factory site an Accu check test was taken. That in one of the seals provided on the meter body a link indicating male and female part was broken. That one of the nuts on the right hand side stud of the PT secondary was missing while the nuts on the middle and the left hand side were loose. On 17th January, 2002 itself at 8.00 p.m laboratory inspection was carried out wherein it was observed that seal wire of the seal provided on MMB was broken. That after opening the Window on the MMB one could easily insert hand and reach the terminal cover. That out of 20 plastic seals, in six seals the connecting link of male and female part were broken whereas in 14 seals this link was intact. On the basis of the aforesaid finding it is stated that :

8. One of the contentions raised by the appellant before the appellate committee was regarding Accu check test performed on 24-12-2001 and this is how the said contention has been reproduced and dealt with by the appellate committee :

"The appellant has also contended that the Dy. Engr. (Lab) Ger. Bavla noticed on 24th December 2001, that one of the twisted wires of the MMB seal was broken. GEB officer had performed Accu Check to satisfy herself about the proper function of the meter. She also tested the meter and the load was specified with the functioning of the meter. She had made a remarks that "meter tested and found OK". This fact clears the bona fide of the appellant that they have not played any alleged mistake with the metering and at that time, the meter was showing the correct reading.
"(8) An exposure of a stud hole on the meter cover is an artificial means for preventing the meter from duly registering. For the purpose of Section 44, the existence of this artificial means gives rise to the presumption that the meter was prevented from duly registering, but this presumption cannot be imported into Section 39. A meter with an exposed stud hole without more is not a perfected instrument for unauthorised lacking of energy, and cannot be regarded as an artificial means for its abstraction. To make it such an artificial means, the tampering must go further, and the meter must be converted into an instrument for recording less than the units actually passing through it. A check meter affords an easy method of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and is being used as an artificial means for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. To bring home the charge under Section 39, the prosecution must also prove that the consumer is responsible for the tampering. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must establish beyond doubt that the consumer is guilty of dishonest abstraction of energy."