Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
Bhartia Steel & Forging Industries & Ors.
vs.
Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation & Ors.
G. A. No. 2558 of 2001
C. S. No. 341 of 2001
Decided On : September 4,2001
ELECTRICITY - CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY - Vires - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTIONS 21(2), 26(6) - CALCULATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION - ASSESSMENT OF PILFERAGE - JURISDICTION OF LICENSEE - INTERIM INJUNCTION - RESTORATION OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, consumers of electricity, filed a suit challenging the conditions of supply framed by the defendant, CESC, under section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and seeking restoration of electricity supply which was disrupted during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case to go for trial on the question of vires of the conditions of supply, as the licensee had usurped the authority to decide its own allegation of pilferage finally through its officers, notwithstanding the existence of the present remedy under the existing law.
Issues: 1. Whether the conditions of supply framed by CESC were ultra vires the Indian Electricity Act, 1910? 2. Whether the assessment of electricity consumption and the issuance of disputed bills by CESC were proper? 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to restoration of electricity supply?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the conditions of supply framed by CESC were ultra vires the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as they conferred the right to adjudicate allegations of pilferage upon the accuser itself, notwithstanding the fact that the question of huge financial gain or loss involved in such adjudication. 2. The court found that the assessment of electricity consumption and the issuance of disputed bills by CESC were improper, as the mode of calculation adopted by CESC was baseless even according to its own conditions of supply. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to restoration of electricity supply, subject to certain conditions, including payment of the amount calculated on the basis of the court's order.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application by directing CESC to calculate the amount of electricity consumed by the plaintiffs and raise a fresh bill accordingly. The plaintiffs were directed to pay the entire amount within a specified time, failing which CESC was entitled to realize the amount. The court also granted an interim injunction restraining CESC from taking further steps or acting in terms of the impugned order and bills.
B. Bhattacharya, J. The plaintiffs, consumers of electricity, have filed the instant suit thereby praying for the following reliefs:
"a. Leave under section 80 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure to institute the suit.
b. Leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
c. Declaration that conditions of supply dated 15th May, 2000 published by defendant No.1 allegedly under section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 are illegal, bad, ultra vires the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, unconstitutional and thereby not enforceable against the petitioner.
d. Declaration that the impugned order dated 18.11.2000 purportedly passed by the defendant No.1 as mentioned in paragraph 13 above is wrongful, illegal, bad and not enforceable against the petitioners.
e. Declaration that the purported bills dated 18.11.2000 raised by the respondent No.1 in terms of the purported order as mentioned in prayer (d) above, are also not enforceable against the petitioners and the same are also bad and illegal.
f. Declaration that purported bills being bill Nos. 2 and 3 as forwarded under letter dated 23rd June, 2001 by the respondent No.1 as mentioned in para 34 above are not enforceable against the petitioners and the same are also bad and illegal.
g. Permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 and/or its men and agents from taking steps or further steps or to act in terms of the impugned order dated 18.11.2000 and the bills as mentioned in prayers (d), (e) and CD above in any manner whatsoever.
h. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their men and agents from giving any effect or further effect and/or to act in terms of new conditions of supply dated 15th May, 2000 allegedly framed under section 21 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in any manner whatsoever.
i. Injunction;
j. Receiver;
k. Cost;
1. Further and other reliefs".
2. In connection with the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs have come up with an interlocutory application of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and men from taking any further steps or to act in terms of the order dated November 18, 2000 passed by the Deputy Manager, Commercial of the defendant No.1 and also from demanding any sum in terms of the purported bill dated November 18, 2000 and also June 23, 2001 as mentioned in paragraphs 35A and 37 A of the said application. The plaintiffs have also prayed for injunction restraining the CESC authority, its men or agents from giving any effect or further effect to the new conditions of supply dated May 15, 2000 allegedly framed under section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
3. At the time of entertaining this application, this Court did not grant any ad interim order of injunction but directed the CESC authority to file affidavit.
Pursuant to the said order the CESC authority has filed affidavit.
4. During the pendency of this application, the plaintiffs complained that the CESC authority has disconnected the supply of electricity. The aforesaid allegation has been disputed by the CESC authority by filing supplementary affidavit thereby asserting that on August 1, 2000 on an inspection it was found that a direct connection had been established from the feeder pillar box by using separate cable which led to the factory premises of the petitioner No.1 without passing through the metering arrangement. The CESC authority alleged that the cut out box fuses had been removed together with the cable cores from the cut out of the meter for the purpose of making a direct connection from the main switch of the meter which would have the effect of bypassing the said meter. It further stated that the cable from the pillar box to the meter had been removed and the same had been connected directly to the feeder box by a tee joint. According to the CESC authority, it was found that those meters have been disconnected for the purpose of reconnection with the main switch directly with the intention to bypass the said meters and as such the CESC
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
