Before Mr. Justice Debasish Kar Gupta, JJ.

( 1 ) THE petitioner files this application under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities in disconnecting the electric supply line of the petitioner at 4/5, Tiljala shibtala Lane, Kolkata-700 039, in respect of Meter Nos. 1700323/3266613 on August 23, 2003.

( 2 ) THE fact of the case in a nutshell is this on August 23, 2003 the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 along with the police officers of Karaya Police station came to the workshop of the petitioner at 4/5, Tiljala Sibtala Lane, kolkata-700 039 and disconnected the electricity connection in respect of meter Nos. 1700323/3266613 and subsequently the petitioner received an order of provisional assessment dated August 23, 2003 of the Assessing officer in respect of the above supply. It appears from the above communication that the aforesaid electricity supply line was disconnected by the respondent authority in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23 (a) of conditions of supply sanctioned/approved by the appropriate government under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 on the allegation of direct connection found from Cutouts by passing the Meter. By that communication the respondent authority made provisional assessment of unauthorised use of electricity to the tune of Rs. 5,75,423/- enclosing a calculation sheet thereof. The petitioner was given opportunity to file written objection if any, within 21 days from the date of the order of provisional assessment. The petitioner was also directed to meet the concerned officer for fixing a date of hearing. Hence this writ application.

( 3 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Javed Kumar sanwarwala, learned Advocate submits that the aforesaid order of provisional assessment dated August 23, 2003 cannot be sustained in law because it was not open for the respondent authority to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 after the promulgation of the Electricity Act, 2003. Mr. Sanwarwala further submits that there is a transitional provision under Section 172 of the Electricity act, 2003 for continuation of the repealed law for a period not exceeding one year from the appointed date of the Electricity Act, 2003 but the same relates to Part-IV containing Sections 12 to 24 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Part-IV of the Electricity Act, 2003 only deals with the relationship of the appropriate commission and the licensee and the same has no manner of application in the matter of a dispute in between the licensee i. e. the CESC ltd. , and the consumer.

( 4 ) MR. Sanwarwala further submits that assuming that the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were applicable in this case, the respondent authority failed to comply with the statutory obligations as provided under Clause 29 (c) of the conditions of supply because there was no provision to assess any amount for alleged unauthorised use of electricity without issuing a notice to the consumer giving reasons for disconnection and advising the consumer to make his written representation, if any, within the period specified in the notice.

( 5 ) MR. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submits that the appointed date for coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003 was June 10, 2003. In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (b) of Section 172 all licences, authorisations, approvals, clearances and permissions granted under the provisions of the repealed law continued to operate as if the repealed laws were in force with respect to such licences, authorisations, approvals, clearances and permissions as the case may be for a period not exceeding one year from the appointed date of the Electricity Act, 2003. In this case the date of disconnection of the electric supply in question was August 23, 2003 i. e. well within one year from the appointed date of the Electricity Act, 2003. As su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document