Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 717
High Court Of Calcutta
Ashim Kumar Banerjee And Tapan Mukherjee, JJ.
CESC LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PAWAN KUMAR KEDIA - Respondent
W. P. 2506 Of 1996
Decided On : 11/21/2006
D.N.MALICK, GOURAB KHAITAN, LALIT KUMAR PODDAR, SAMIT TALUKDAR, SHIV RATAN KAKRANIA
In the absence of specific provisions in the conditions of supply empowering the licensee to adjudicate disputes related to pilferage and unmetered consumption under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Chief Electrical Inspector has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY - DISCONNECTION - PILFERAGE - ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTE - CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S JURISDICTION - CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 (10 OF 1910) - SECTION 44
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a consumer of electricity under the appellants, faced electricity disconnection due to alleged pilferage without prior notice. The appellants demanded payment based on a provisional assessment of the loss incurred due to pilferage. The respondent approached the High Court seeking restoration of electricity and adjudication of the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the conditions of supply in force at the time of disconnection did not empower the appellants to adjudicate the dispute through their own officer. The Chief Electrical Inspector was deemed the appropriate authority to adjudicate the dispute.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had the authority to adjudicate the dispute through their own officer under the conditions of supply. 2. Whether the Chief Electrical Inspector was the appropriate authority to adjudicate the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Apex Court decisions in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basanti Bai and Hyderabad Vanaspati Limited v. APSEB, as well as the Division Bench decisions in CESC Limited v. Mangal Steel Enterprises and CESC Limited v. Lohia Mandalia, held that the conditions of supply could empower the licensee to adjudicate disputes through their own officer. 2. However, in the instant case, the conditions of supply in force at the time of disconnection did not stipulate such power for the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The respondent was granted liberty to raise objections to the provisional assessment made by the appellants within two weeks. The appropriate authority under the appellants was directed to dispose of such objections after providing a hearing opportunity and passing a reasoned order to be communicated within four weeks.
( 1 ) THE respondent was a consumer of electricity under the appellants. On the allegation of pilferage his electricity connection was disconnected without any notice. He was served with a demand by the appellants after a provisional assessment of the loss occurred to the appellants due to such pilferage. The respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. By an interim order the electricity was restored upon payment of 50% of the amount so demanded. The writ petition was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated July 10, 2003 by which the writ petition was allowed. The Chief Electrical Inspector, West Bengal was directed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties upon giving appropriate hearing to them.
( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the appellants preferred the present appeal.
( 3 ) MR. Lalit Kumar Poddar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended before us that under the conditions of supply the appellants wereempowered to adjudicate the disputes through their own officer and Chief Electrical Inspector was not appropriate authority to whom the dispute was referred by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contention Mr. Poddar relied upon two Apex Court decisions in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Basanti Bai, reported in All India Reporter, 1988, Supreme Court, Page 71 and Hyderabad Vanaspati Limited vs. APSEB, reported in All India Reporter, 1998, Supreme Court, Page 1715. Mr. Poddar also relied upon a decision by the Division Bench presided over by me in APO No. 351 of 2002 (CESC Limited vs. Mangal Steel Enterprises and Ors.) dated July 4, 2006. Mr. Poddar also contended that the said judgment and order was taken up to the Apex Court level where special leave petition was dismissed by an order dated October 13, 2006 as the Apex Court did not see any reason to interfere. He also relied on an identical decision of this Bench in APO No. 123 of 2003 (CESC Limited vs. Lohia Mandalia and Ors.) dated september 5, 2006.
( 4 ) MR. Samit Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the decision cited by Mr. Poddar were holding the field and were based upon the well-settled principles of law. He, however, contended that those could not be applied in the instant case because of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved herein. Mr. Talukdar contended that in this case disconnection was effected in 1996 with the conditions of supply that did not stipulate the power of the CESC Limited to have the line disconnected on the ground of pilferage. Such condition came in force with effect from May 15, 2000 when the State of West Bengal approved such conditions of supply under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1910" ). Mr. Talukdar tried to distinguish the apex Court decision in the case of Hyderabad Vanaspati (supra ). According to him, in the said case the condition of supply did stipulate such power which was not available to CESC 'limited in 1996 when the electricity was disconnected. In support of his contention Mr. Talukdar also relied on a division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal and ors. vs. Rupa Ice Factory and Ors. , reported in 1997, Volume II, Calcutta high Court Notes, Page 254, where the Division Bench interpreted the phrase "improper use of energy" to include the case of pilferage. The Division bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge where the Electrical inspector was asked to adjudicate upon the issue in question.
( 5 ) MR. Talukdar also relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee vs. CESC Limited and Anr. , reported in 1998, Volume -III, Calcutta Law Times, .
( 6 ) PARAGRAPH 44 of the said decision was relied upon by Mr. Talukdar which is quoted below:-"after carefu
