The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence linking tampering with the meter to the consumer to infer fraudulent abstraction of energy, as well as the need for the respondent to address specific contentions raised by the petitioner.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The petitioner resides in the second floor of B-42, Kailash Colony. He filed this writ petition to challenge a speaking order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. The petitioner also challenges bills raised for fraudulent abstraction of energy (FAE) in the sum of Rs. 6,97,030/- for a connection K. No. 009-0803434 and for an amount of Rs. 1,65,910/- for a connection K. No. 013-1333658.

2. The background to the filing of the petition is that in May 1992 the petitioners wife opened a beauty clinic in the basement of the premises. A voluntary declaration of commercial use on one of the meters was made by the petitioner. An inspection was conducted of the premises on 1.8.1998 by one Shri G.K.Kaushal, Inspector, Meter Testing Department (MTD). It was found that there were three connections: K. No. 009- 0803434, K. No. 009-1333658 and 0131333666. As regards the connection K. No. 009-0803434 which was for meter No. 4G 9022557, the seals of CT Box and meter box (common) were found tampered. As regards K. No. 013-1333658 concerning meter No. 4G 9022570 a common CT and meter box seals were found missing. The meter half-seal found fixed did not tally with the sample monogram and was hence stated to be fictitious. Both rivets were found tampered. Tampering was also observed in the meter by damaging the meter body between meter cover and meter base. As regards the third connection

K. No. 013-1333666 both half seals were found in tact. The meter was found stopped on 100W test lamp and also stopped on consumer load.

3. According to the respondent another inspection was conducted on 7.10.1998 by Shri J.P.Kaushik, Inspector (Zone-1802), Nehru Place. As regards the connection No. K.009-0803434, the inspection report disclosed that this connection was found being used at ground floor and basement with a connected load of 67.305 KW. The other connection K. No. 013-1333658 was being used at first and second floor with a connected load of 48.695 KW. The connection No. 0131333666 was being used for water pump and lighting, had a connected load of 2.8. KW. It is stated that on the basis of these 2 inspections, bills for the FAE as mentioned hereinbefore were raised.

4. The petitioner challenged the bills by filing of Writ Petition (C) No. 6722 of 1998. By an order dated 26.7.1999 this Court referred the matter to the Permanent Lok Adalat to explore the possibility of a settlement. In the record of proceedings dated 10.3.2000 the Lok Adalat noted that on 18.6.1997 the petitioner had written a letter to the Officer in charge, Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), Greater Kailash Part I stating that the outermost seal of the steel cover/box in respect of meter bearing No. 1333658 was broken. The petitioner requested the DVB to have the seal of the meter installed/refitted. The Lok Adalat also noticed the statement of the petitioner that despite this request, no action was taken by the respondents and that is why he approached the High Court. The Lok Adalat also noted the submissions of the petitioner that the inspection report of 1.10.1998 was not based on facts. The recorded consumption pattern three years prior to 1.8.1998 and 13 months after 1.8.1998 had been more or less uniform whereas the case of the respondent was that the consumption based on the connected load was much higher than the recorded consumption. The Lok Adalat noticed that there was no possibility of an amicable settlement and the record was returned to the High Court.

5. By an Order dated 16.9.2004 this Court noted the submission of the respondent that the second inspection dated 7.10.1998 was carried out at the request of the petitioner and that the connected load against the two connections was to the extent of 67.305KW (Basement and ground floor) and 48.695 KW (first and second floor) as against the sanctioned load which is 16 KW for domestic purpose. The Court also noted the statement of learned Counsel for the respondent that pursua