1. Detection of electrical energy theft through tampered meter seals — Disconnection of supply and demand for compensation — Challenge to the legality of disconnection without hearing. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 812
1996(4) Supreme 630
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Harsh Wood Products & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7798 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12310 of 1993)
Decided on 18-4-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Electricity Board, when it detects that any consumer had committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy, may disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon consumer to make payment for compensation of unauthorised use of electricity i.e. theft of electricity.
Electricity Board, when it detects that any consumer had committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy, may disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon consumer to make payment for compensation of unauthorised use of electricity i.e. theft of electricity.
Subject
Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Section 31(e) & 24-Malpractice with reference to use of electrical energy-Empowers Board to disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon the consumer to make payment for compensation of unauthorised use of electricity-Inspection of electrical installation of respondent industry done in pre-sence of its representative-Prima facie conclusion of pilferage reached that meters were tempered with-Section 24 which contemplates 7 days notice before disconnection would not apply to demand on detection of pilferage-It was not necessary to give further hearing to respondents-Electricity disconnection was not violative of Articles 20(1), 14 of Constitution or principles of natural justice. (Paras 6 to 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether disconnection of electricity supply upon detection of pilferage requires a prior hearing and notice under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Constitution. (Para 4 , 7 )
3. Clause 31(e) permits forthwith disconnection for malpractice; Section 24's notice requirement applies to regular billing defaults, not to cases of detected pilferage. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Disconnection of electricity supply upon detection of pilferage or malpractice does not require a prior hearing or the seven-day notice mandated for regular payment defaults. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order quashed — Disconnection and demand for compensation upheld. (Para 8 )
6. Does Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, requiring a seven-day notice before disconnection, apply to cases of electricity pilferage?
No. Section 24 applies to the disconnection of regular supply for non-payment of usual bills. It does not apply to demands made after the detection of pilferage. (Para 7 )
7. Is a consumer entitled to a hearing before the disconnection of electricity supply upon detection of malpractice or theft?
No. Where the board detects malpractice or theft and reaches a prima facie conclusion of pilferage, it may disconnect the supply forthwith without a prior hearing, provided such power is granted under the applicable tariff conditions. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
8. Does the forthwith disconnection of electricity supply for theft violate the principles of natural justice or constitutional rights under Articles 14, 20(1), or 21?
No. Such action is not violative of Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice when based on agreed installation conditions and a prima facie conclusion of pilferage. (Para 8 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated March 12, 1993 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in M.P. No. 1484/91. The admitted position is that on August 21, 1991, the appellants staff inspected the electrical installation of the respondents connected by the appellant-Board. In the proceedings recorded after the said inspection, the facts noted are as under :
"During the course of inspection, Shri Dilip was present as the representative of M/s. Harsh Wood Products, Banmore, and found the following irregularities. Connection No. 1156 [2556] -
1. No seal found on Meter terminal cover.
2. Body seals of the meter, bearing No.490812 [Right side] and 01443 [Lift Side] found tempered.
3. The seals on Meter Box, bearing No.38556/SE Morena, C-10/MPEB Gwalior, found OK.
Connection No.1158 [2824]
1. No seal found with Meter terminal cover.
2. Meter Body seals, bearing No.49817 [Right Side] & 013361 [Left Side] found broken and tampered.
3. Seal on meter box bearing No. 33434/SE Morena C-10/MPEB Gwalior found OK.
In both the above connections, the difference was noticed, in serial No. and the location of the seals provided on Meter Body. The serial No. and the location of the meter body seals, as found in the inspection carried out on dated 16.3.91, are found different in the checking carried out on dated 22.8.91. The difference noticed in serial No. & location in checking is as hereunder :
Connection No. 2556 Connection No.2824
16.3.91 Right Side 490817 013343
Seal fixed Lift Side 490812 013361
28.8.91
Reprot as Right Side 490812 49817
Left Side 013343 013361
Meter No. 0530489 545768
This panchnama has been prepared in view of Meter Body seals found Tempered and Meter terminal seals found missing so as to interfere and control the energy consumption as per his own desire.
Maintaining "Status Quo" of the tempered and broken body seals of Meter of Both the above connection, New Seals are fixed on the meter box bearing No. M1919 MPEB/MT on Connection No.2556 and No. M 1920 MPEB/MT on connection No.2824. The old seals provided on the meter box are in custody with the Executive Engineer [O&M] Morena.
Sd/-22.8.91 Sd/-22.8.91 Sd/ 22.8.91
EE [O&M] S.E [Testing] A.E.[DIW]
Morena Gwalior Morena
Sd/-22.8.91 Sd/-22.8.91 Sd/-22.8.91
A.E.132 KV A.E. [Testing] Dilip
S/s Banmore Morena [Representative of Consumer]".
3. In the said proceedings, one Mr. Dilip had represented the respondent-Industry and he was also the signatory to the proceedings. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondents on August 26, 1991 informing that the meter body seals were tempered and damaged with seal wire. The seals of the meter terminal block were found missing which would indicate that the function of the meter was disturbed to reduce the consumption of electrical energy. Therefore, the respondent-Industry was directed to pay the difference of the assessed amount said to be in a sum of Rs. 6,51,256,61 at the earliest. It was also pointed out that bill for the further past years was being examined and the decision would be taken and intimated in due course. In furtherance thereof, the respondent-Industry submitted the explanation to the show cause on August 29, 1991 wherein he requested that on humanitarian grounds, viz., "the supply of the installation will please be restored immediately and we give the undertaking that if any balance amount becomes due for payment on account of vigilance checking, the same will be deposited immediately on providing the bills for such amount". The reply was also gi
