The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicability of Section 19(2) and Section 21(4) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to the specific circumstances of the case.

( 1 ) THE material facts are these: The petitioner, a Partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of plastic tops and laminations imported and installed a Dixon Pilot Quoting Machine and an Air dryer in the Year 1973. The respondent Karnataka State Electricity Board sanctioned energy to the said installation subject to an authorised load of 98 HP and serviced the same with effect from 15-9-1973. It also fixed the monthly minimum charges payable on that basis. The petitioner has also averred that the respondent-2 never provided the required 200a fuses at their pole.

( 2 ) IT is further averred in the writ Petition that the 2nd respondent in the writ Petition arbitrarily disconnected the power to the petitioner on false and trumped up charges on 6-6-74 and the petitioner immediately appealed to the Chairman on 7-6-1974 and the Chairman appointed the chief Engineer (South) to inspect and give his findings. The Chief Engineer, by his report dt. 30-8-1974 gave his findings exonerating the petitioner and recommended re-connection. But, the board for the reasons best known to it did not give the re-connection. The petitioner was forced to file writ petition No. 1442/75, on the file of this Court, but the same was dismissed. But in appeal W. A. 353/1976 which was allowed on 1-6-1977 it was held that the disconnection was illegal and issued a writ of mandamus directing reconnection.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has invested huge amounts borrowing from banks and financial institutions at heavy rates of interest and on account of the illegal and arbitrary disconnection of the energy for a period of three years, the machinery could not be worked and the petitioner has thus suffered heavy losses on account of the interference by the licensee and the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for the inconvenience, as a result of an undue and illegal interference by resposdent-2. In spite of the reliefs granted to the petitioner in W. A. 353/76. the petitioner avers, that it was not possible to restart or rejuvenate the industry unless a fair compensation for this arbitrary and prolonged disconnection was received.

( 4 ) SO, according to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the Chairman for the relief. The chairman directed the petitioner to submit his claim and he submitted his claim on 24-10-1977, a true copy of the same is filed along with the writ petition at Exhibit-A. No reply was received and no action was taken by the Board. Thereafter, the present writ petitioner gave a notice to respondent-2 demanding, inter alia, arbitration under Section 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. r. /w. Section 19 (2) and Section 21 (4) of the Act and naming an Arbitrator from the petitioner's side. A true copy of the said notice is filed along with the writ petition at Exhibit-B. The reply received to it dated 13-12-1977 by respondent-2 was beside the point and a true copy of that reply is filed along with the writ Petition at Exhibit-C. The petitioner again sent a letter dated 25-12-77 to the Government requesting the appointment of Arbitrator as required under section 52 of the Electricity Act, 1910. A true copy of the said letter is filed along with the writ petition at Exhibit-D. The 1st respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner. A true copy of the letter turning down the request of the petitioner is filed along with the writ petition at Exhibit-E. Thus, the petitioner according to him is forced to approach this Court with the following prayer.

"wherefore the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and: (i) issue a writ of mandamus Or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to name an arbitrator as provided under Section 52 of the Electricity Act, 191. 0, for enquiry and assessment of the compensation due to the losses sustained on account of the illegal disconnection. " this prayer was opposed by the other side. They contended that the matter is not covered either b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document