Back
1997 Supreme(Cal) 261
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ruma Pal & Devendra Kumar Jain, JJ.
State of West Bengal and Anr.
vs.
Rupa Ice Factory and Ors.
WRIT APPEAL FMAT No. 3781 of 1996
Decided On : June 27, 1997
Advocate Appeared:
A.K. Mitra, P.S. Biswas for the appellant;
Ajit Kr. Panja, S.K. Gorai, Gurupada Das for the respondent No.1;
S.K. Rath for the State.
The WBSEB has the authority to disconnect the supply without notice on the basis of the agreement and the conditions of supply, provided the Board is of the opinion that the circumstances mentioned in the clauses exist.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY - Disconnection of supply - Authority of WBSEB to disconnect supply without notice - Determination of quantum of un-metered consumption/in cases of pilferage and raise bills on the basis thereof - Limitation for raising bills - Entry into factory premises of the consumer in violation of s. 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a manufacturer of ice blocks, applied to the West Bengal State Electricity Board (WBSEB) for the necessary supply of electricity. An agreement was executed between the WBSEB and the respondent for such supply on 29th July, 1991. A meter was installed through which the electricity was supplied to the respondent. The supply was disconnected on 22nd December, 1995. The WBSEB alleged that there was a direct tapping line from the transformer secondary site to the L.T. Distribution mains by passing the meter circuit. The respondent denied the allegations and filed a writ petition challenging the disconnection of supply and the supplementary bill raised by the WBSEB for the period December, 1992 to November, 1993 and December, 1993 to December, 1995. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the restoration of the electricity supply to the factory upon payment of Rs. 25,000/-. The WBSEB preferred an appeal against the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that: * The WBSEB had the authority to disconnect the supply without notice on the basis of the agreement and the conditions of supply, provided the Board was of the opinion that the circumstances mentioned in the clauses existed. * The WBSEB was competent to test the meter and compute the amount according to the formula provided in Condition 17(iii) of the General Conditions of Supply. * The claim arising out of the alleged tampering should be decided by the Electrical Inspector under clause VI(iii) of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910. * The period of limitation of 6 months would apply to the first claim of the WBSEB i.e. on account of the defective meter. However, limitation of 6 months would have no application to any amount claimed by WBSEB towards the electricity stated to have been wrongfully consumed by the respondent No. 1. * The entry into the factory premises of the consumer in violation of s. 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was not considered by the Court as it was not clear whether this point had been urged at any stage of the proceedings by the respondent before the learned Single Judge.
Issues: * Whether the WBSEB has the authority to disconnect the supply on the basis of allegations of pilferage without any notice? * Whether WBSEB had the authority to determine the quantum of un-metered consumption/in cases of pilferage and raise bills on the basis thereof? * Whether any part of the claim of WBSEB in the supplementary bill is barred by limitation? * Whether WBSEB Officers had illegally entered into the factory premises of the respondent No. 1 in violation of s. 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that: * The WBSEB had the authority to disconnect the supply without notice on the basis of the agreement and the conditions of supply, provided the Board was of the opinion that the circumstances mentioned in the clauses existed. * The WBSEB was competent to test the meter and compute the amount according to the formula provided in Condition 17(iii) of the General Conditions of Supply. * The claim arising out of the alleged tampering should be decided by the Electrical Inspector under clause VI(iii) of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910. * The period of limitation of 6 months would apply to the first claim of the WBSEB i.e. on account of the defective meter. However, limitation of 6 months would have no application to any amount claimed by WBSEB towards the electricity stated to have been wrongfully consumed by the respondent No. 1. * The entry into the factory premises of the consumer in violation of s. 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was not considered by the Court as it was not clear whether this point had been urged at any stage of the proceedings by the respondent before the learned Single Judge.
Final Decision: The Court partially allowed the appeal and directed: * The claim on account of the alleged improper use of energy is referred to the Electrical Inspector. * The respondent No. 1 will apply to the Electrical Inspector under s. 26(6) within 2 weeks from date with notice to the WBSEB. * In default of the respondent No. 1 applying in accordance with Clause (ii) above, the WBSEB may enforce its claim on account of defective meter recording limited to 6 months in accordance with law. * In the event either of the decisions of the Electrical Inspector is in favour of the WBSEB, the WBSEB will be entitled to raise a claim on the respondent No. 1 on the basis of such decision and after giving credit for any amounts paid enforce the decision in accordance with law. * If as a result of either of the decisions of the Electrical Inspector any amount is found to have been paid by the respondent No. 1 in excess, such excess amount shall either be refunded to the respondent No. 1 together with interest thereon calculated from the date of deposit by the respondent No. 1 at the same rate at which the WBSEB claims from the consumers on default payment within 2 weeks from the date of the decision or may be adjusted together with interest calculated as aforesaid by the WBSEB against the bill for the month immediately following such decision.
Ruma Pal, J.
This is an appeal preferred from an order dated 11th October, 1996 directing the restoration of the electricity line to the respondent No. 1. The restoration was to be made within 48 hours from the date of payment of the amount for which the respondent No. 1 was billed. The billed amount was limited to the claim for six months and was directed to be paid within 7 days from the date of the order. Subsequent to the order the respondent No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 3,25,218/- and the appellants have restored the connection without prejudice to their rights.
2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent No. 1 carries on the business of manufacturing of ice blocks in its factory. It applied to the West Bengal State Electricity Board (referred to as WBSEB) for the necessary supply of electricity. An agreement was executed between the WBSEB and the respondent No. 1 for such supply on 29th July, 1991. A meter was installed through which the electricity was supplied to the respondent No. 1. The supply was disconnected on 22nd December, 1995.
3. The disputed facts relate to the circumstances under which the supply of electricity to the respondent No. 1 was disconnected by the officers of the WBSEB. According to the appellants the Central Vigilance Squad along with one officer and three home guards of the local police station in the course of physical verification of the meter/metering installation of the factory found that there was a direct tapping line from the transformer secondary site to the L.T. Distribution mains by passing the meter circuit. In other words there was an un-metered consumption. It is the appellant's further case that the vigilance squad also found one plastic seal had been affixed on the front of the meter board and that the movement of the meter was found to be stopped. The installed capacity of the transformer was found to be 250 KVA and the installed load of the meter was found to be 145 H.P. The appellant's officers recorded all this in a physical verification sheet. This was signed by the officers of the Central Vigilance Squad, the officers of the local police station as well as persons, who, the appellants claim, were employees of the factory. The line was thereafter disconnected from the tapping pole of the 11 KVA feeder line and the meter room was sealed by a plastic seal.
4. The respondent No. 1 on the other hand has submitted that the Central Vigilance Squad came without giving notice to the respondent No. 1 when the factory was not working and broke open the door and padlock of the meter room and obtained signatures of two persons who were not the employees of nor in any way connected with the respondent No. 1.
5. It is not in dispute that an FIR was lodged with the local police station on the same date by the Central Vigilance Suad. On 10th January, 1996 the Superintendent Engineer, South 24 Parganas Circle of the Board sent a supplementary bill for a sum of Rs. 16,09,416/- to the respondent No. 1 for the period December, 1992 to November, 1993 and December, 1993 to December, 1995 together with detailed break up and calculations under two heads : (1) non-recorded consumption of electricity and (2) pilferage of electricity.
6. This was replied to on 6th February, 1996 by the respondent No. 1. In this letter the respondent No., 1 challenged the calculations. It was also alleged that the officers of the WBSEB had broken open the door and padlock of the meter room of the factory and forcibly obtained the signature of two local labourers. It was also disputed that there had been any tapping of electricity. It was accordingly prayed that the bills should be referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication.
7. The respondent No. 1 then filed a writ application on 8th March, 1996 challenging the supplementary bill and praying for reconnection. An interim order was passed on 26th April, 1996 directing restoration of the supply of electricity to the factory upon payment of Rs. 25,000/-. Thes
