SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(All) 212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. KHANNA, G. P. MATHUR
ADITYA ROTOR SPIN (P) LTD., KANPUR - Appellant
Versus
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 1191 Of 1991
Decided On : 02/22/1991

Advocates Appeared:
V.B.SINGH

Regulation 22 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, which empowers the electricity board to disconnect the electricity supply of a consumer who has committed theft of energy, is valid and does not suffer from any illegality.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY ACT - Theft of energy - Assessment bill - Validity - Regulation 22 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 - Held, Regulation 22 is valid and does not suffer from any illegality.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private limited company, was found to have committed theft of electricity by tampering with the meter. The U.P. State Electricity Board (the Board) disconnected the petitioner's electricity supply and issued an assessment bill for Rs. 7,42,931.88. The petitioner challenged the assessment bill and the disconnection of electricity supply by filing a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Regulation 22 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, which empowers the Board to disconnect the electricity supply of a consumer who has committed theft of energy, is valid and does not suffer from any illegality. The court also held that the assessment bill issued to the petitioner was valid and that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the bill before claiming restoration of electricity supply.

Issues: 1. Whether Regulation 22 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, is valid? 2. Whether the assessment bill issued to the petitioner is valid? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of electricity supply without depositing the amount mentioned in the assessment bill?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 22 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, is valid as it provides sufficient guidelines and precise situations in which the power to disconnect electricity supply can be exercised. 2. The assessment bill issued to the petitioner is valid as it was prepared in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexure I to the Regulations. 3. The petitioner is not entitled to restoration of electricity supply without depositing the amount mentioned in the assessment bill as per Regulation 22(D) of the Regulations.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the assessment bill and other required fees, and the Board was directed to restore the petitioner's electricity connection within three days of the deposit.

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner company and for declaring Regulation 22 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, as ultra vires. During the course of hearing of the writ petition the petitioners also moved an amendment application, which was allowed, for quashing the assessment demand notice dated 18-12-1990 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition ).

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a private limited company which has a factory for manufacturing cotton yarn at Vishayakpur Rania in district Kanpur Dehat. The U. P. State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1, sanctioned a power connection for the factory of petitioner No. 1. On 4-12-1990 the factory was inspected by a team consisting of several senior engineers of the office of the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Central Area, Lucknow. When the meter was checked from outside the cubical box it was found that the meter was recording 33% less than the actual consumption. The meter box was thereafter opened and tested and it was discovered that one wire going from C. T. to the meter had been removed from the joint. The wire had been covered by PVC tape and thereafter it had been put on another wire connecting the meter and thus on account of PVC tape there was no contact between the C. T. and the meter. Thus on account of non-contact of one wire of the meter it was recording 33% less than the actual consumption of the energy. This checking was done in the presence of Shri R. D. Sharma, representative of the petitioner company. A checking report was immediately prepared on the spot which was signed by Shri D. Sharma, representative of the petitioner company. A checking report was immediately prepared on the spot which was signed by Shri R. K. Misra and Shri Randhir Singh, Executive Engineers, Shri S. N. Bajpai, Asstt. Engineer Sub-Divisional Officer, and Shri Sanjay Misra. J. E. , on behalf of the U. P. State Electricity Board. It was also signed by Shri Dilip Kumar on behalf of the consumer (petitioners ). A copy of the checking report dated 4-12-1990 has been filed as CA I to the counter-affidavit. On the same day, i. e. , on 4-12-1990 Shri S. N. Bajpai, S. D. O. , also lodged a first information report against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC at P. S. outpost Rania, district Kanpur Dehat, and a true copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Petitioner No. 2 also lodged a first information report at P. S. Akbarpur on 5-12-1990 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) alleging that at about 11 am on 4-12-1990 officers and men of the U. P. Electricity Board came to inspect his factory in two vehicles and told Shri Dilip Shukla, an employee of the factory, that they had come to check the meter of the electric connection. It is also alleged that Shri Sanjay Misra, J. E. , demanded Rs. 5,000. 00 and when Shri Dilip Shukla expressed his inability to pay, the electric supply was disconnected.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed writ petition No. 34001 of 1990 for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to resume the supply of electrical energy to the petitioners and for declaring Regulation 22 as ultra vires. The writ petition was heard for admission on 18-12-1990 and it was disposed on the same day. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-"the respondents are directed to restore the electric supply of the petitioner on payment of usual charges of reconnection. If and when the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 63,635. 56 (Rupees sixty three thousand, six hundred thirty five and fifty six paise only) with the respondent No. 2, the electric supply shall be restored within a period of one week from the date of deposit of the said sum. "the petitioners have averred that they have deposited Rs. 63635. 56 on 22-12-1990 and Rs. 200. 00 towards the reconnection char


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top