Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : O.CHINNAPPA REDDY
MATADIN - Appellant
Versus
ASST.ENGINEER D.P.E., HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 03-08-68
ELECTRICITY ACT - DISCONNECTION OF SUPPLY - UNAUTHORIZED ABSTRACTION OF ENERGY - COMPENSATION - RULES 9 AND 10 OF THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY - INTERPRETATION - CONSISTENCY WITH SECTIONS 24 AND 26 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT AND RULE 57 OF THE ELECTRICITY RULES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, consumers of electricity, had their supply disconnected by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board (Board) for allegedly abstracting energy illegally and without authorization. The Board offered to resume supply if the petitioners paid a certain amount as compensation, which was estimated tentatively. The petitioners challenged the Board's actions and the validity of Rules 9 and 10 of the General Terms and Conditions for the supply of electrical energy, arguing that they were arbitrary and inconsistent with the Electricity Act and Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rules 9 and 10 were not arbitrary and were consistent with the Electricity Act and Rules. It found that Rule 10 authorized the Board to disconnect supply in case of malpractice, including unauthorized abstraction of energy, and that Rule 9 provided for the determination of compensation by the Superintending Engineer, with an appeal to the Chief Engineer. The court also noted that B.P. No. 40 prescribed a detailed procedure for the Superintending Engineer to follow, ensuring that the consumer was given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
Issues: 1. Whether Rules 9 and 10 of the General Terms and Conditions for the supply of electrical energy were arbitrary and gave the Board unfettered power to demand compensation. 2. Whether Rules 9 and 10 were inconsistent with Sections 24 and 26 of the Electricity Act and Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rules 9 and 10 in light of the Electricity Act and Rules and found that they did not give the Board arbitrary power to demand compensation. It held that 'suitable compensation' under Rule 10 meant compensation for the value of the energy abstracted, not penal damages. 2. The court found that Rules 9 and 10 were not inconsistent with Sections 24 and 26 of the Electricity Act and Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules. It noted that Section 24 dealt with discontinuance of supply for non-payment of charges, Section 26(6) related to disputes concerning meters, and Rule 57 also concerned meters. Therefore, these provisions did not apply to the situation of unauthorized abstraction of energy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that there were no merits in the petitioners' arguments. It found that Rules 9 and 10 were valid and consistent with the Electricity Act and Rules, and that the Board's actions in disconnecting supply and offering to resume it upon payment of compensation were justified.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are consumers of electricity to whom electrical energy is supplied by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board officials of the Board, suspecting that there has been illegal and unauthorised abstration of electrical energy by the petitioners stopped supply of energy to the petitioners by disconnscting their service, as they are authored to do under Clause 10 of -he General Terms and conditions. Pending determination of the amount of compensation payable to the Board for the unauthorised abstraction of energy in accordance with Clause 9 as sure of interim relief, the Board, through its Officers offered to each of the petitioners to resume supply of electricity if they paid a certain amount estimat. ed by the Board tentatively as compensation. At that stage the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Writs to direct the respondent Board to restore supply of electricity and to restrain the Board from enforcing its alleged demand. In each of these cases an Interim order has been granted directing the Board to resume the supply of electricity on condition of the petitioner depositig a specified amount with the Board: when the cases were taken up for hearing yesterday, Mr. Ananta Babu, learned Counsel for the Board submitted that the amounts of compensation payable by the petitioners have not yet been determined in accordance with the rules and that the Board is not making any demand on any one to pay compensation, that stage not having arrived yet. Supply of electricity to the petitioners having been stopped in accordance with rules, the Board offered to resume supply if certain amounts being tentative estimates of compensation were deposited. These offers were made to the consumers to prevent hardship to the petitioners whose industries and businesses may be dislocated if electrical energy is not made available. The consumers need not avail themselves of the offer if they so desire. Mr. Ananta Babu also pointed out that Rule 9 of the general Terms and Conditions and B. P, Ms. No. 40, dt: 21-1-1964 make detailed provision for enquiry by the Superintending Engineer into the question of compensation, that thrre is provision for giving an adequate opportunity to the consumer and a further provision for appeal to the Chief Engineer the consumers can raise any question which they want to raise before the superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer. Sri Ananta Babu also stated that the Board will abide by the interim orders passed by this Court and will resume supply of electricity to the petitioners without insisting on payment ot any amount untill the determination of compensation by tire Superintending engineer. As the concession made by the Board appeared to be reasonable, i asked the learned Counsel whether they sitll wanted to pursue the Writ petitions. They preferred to argue the Writ Petitions. Sri Reddi Panthulu, learned counsel in W. P, No. 1894/1987 etc , urged that Rule 10 of the General Terms and Conditions gave arbitrary power to the Board to demand suitable compensation without defining how the com. pensation suould be determined. Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel in w. P. No. 2057/1967 etc. , urged that Rules 9 and 10 are inconsistent with sections 24 and 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and with Rule 57 of the indian Electricity Rules. Section 49 (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act is as follows;;"49. (1) Provision for the sale of Eltclricity by the Board to persons other than liecnsecs: subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulations, if any made in this behalf, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensees, upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs. Section 79 (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act is as follows :"79; Power to matt regulations : the Board may make regulations not
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.