Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1661
2005 (2) AWC 1269
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Ashok Bhushan, J.
C.M.W.P. Nos. 22931 and 22932 of 2004
Decided on September 14, 2004
Sri Bhagwan Gupta
Versus
Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and others
Counsel for the Petitioner: H. N. Singh and B. Narain Singh.
Counsel for the Respondents: Ranjit Saxena, S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of electricity charges for theft and tampering of meters must be in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the Act.
Headnote:
Electricity Theft - Assessment of Electricity Charges - U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002, Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Paragraph 6.17.1 and 6.17.2 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002 - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002 and Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, highlighting the conflict between the assessment rates provided in the Code and the Act. The court emphasized that the assessment under the Code, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the Electricity Act, 2003, must be applied for assessing the electricity charges payable by a person found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. The court found that the assessment made by the respondents contravened the statutory provisions of Section 126 (6) of the Act, and the appellate authority affirmed the assessment without adverting to Section 126 (6) of the Act, thus rendering the assessment and the appellate order contrary to the provisions of the Act and unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consumer of electricity, challenged assessment bills for theft of electricity and tampering of meters. The court considered the submissions of both parties and relevant provisions governing the assessment in cases of theft of electricity. The court discussed the assessment made by the respondents, including the calculation of units assessed, number of days for which theft took place, and the load factor, and found several discrepancies in the assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment made by the respondents and affirmed by the appellate authority was contrary to the provisions of Section 126 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and therefore unsustainable. The court set aside the assessment bills and the appellate order, remitting the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in light of the court's observations.
Issues: The issues included the calculation of units assessed, the number of days for which theft took place, and the load factor in the assessment of electricity charges for theft and tampering of meters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the assessment under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the Electricity Act, 2003, must be applied for assessing the electricity charges payable by a person found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. The court also highlighted the conflict between the assessment rates provided in the Code and the Act, and the overriding effect of the Electricity Act, 2003, over inconsistent provisions in the Code.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed both writ petitions, setting aside the assessment bills and the appellate order, and remitting the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in light of the court's observations. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties both the writ petitions are being finally decided. These two writ petitions have been heard together since they raise similar issues. Writ Petition No. 22931 of 2004, Sri Bhagwan Gupta v. Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred as the first writ petition), has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the assessment bills dated 1st April, 2004 Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition and the order dated 10.6.2004 Annexure-12 to the writ petition, passed by the appellate committee respondent No. 2.
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the first writ petition are :
“Petitioner is a consumer of category of HV 2 of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. the contracted load of which is 79 KVA (67.15 KW). The security meter was provided on 8.9.2003. On 13.3.2004 respondents installed a check meter at the premises of the petitioner. On 13.3.2004 the respondents removed the check meter and installed a new check meter. On 26.3.2004 the premises of the petitioner were checked by a raid team on which date the seals of the meter were found tampered. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 26.3.2004.. The assessment bill dated 1.4.2004 was raised for an amount of Rs. 50,38,604. Another supplementary assessment bill of the same date was raised for an amount of Rs. 7,91,760 as voltage surcharge @ 15% for 400 Volts. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid bills before the appellate committee. The appeal filed by the petitioner was directed to be decided by this Court vide its order dated 7.5.2004 passed in the Writ Petition No. 17268 of 2004 subject to the condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 3,00,000 within ten days. The amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was deposited and consequently the appellate authority considered the appeal on merits which was dismissed on 10.6.2004. A copy of the appellate order has been annexed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition.”
3. Brief facts of the Second Writ Petition No. 22932 of 2004, Sri Niwas Gupta v. Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and others are :
“The petitioner is a consumer of category HV 2 with contracted load of 86 KVA (73.1 KW). A meter was installed in the petitioner’s premises. On 28.2.2004 meter reading of the petitioner was taken on which date old lead seals No. 250654 and 250653 affixed on the meter cubicle doors were removed and in place thereof new lead seals No. 252736 and 252737 were provided and similarly the paper sticker No. 008566 and 008567 provided on the lock affixed on the meter door box were removed and new paper sticker No. 014683 and 014684 were provided. On 31.3.2004 a checking was made by the respondent in the premises of the petitioner and it was found that the paper sticker No. 014683 and 014684 were forged and the signatures of Sr. S.S.B. Gupta were also forged. The lead seals were tampered. The amount of Rs. 4,00,000 were paid by the consumer as penalty by two cheques. Assessment bill dated 1.4.2004 was raised for an amount of Rs. 16,50,377. Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority. The appeal of the petitioner was heard on deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 as per direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17269 of 2004. The appellate committee dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by its order dated 10.6.2004. The writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment bills dated 1.4.2004 and the appellate order dated 10.6.2004. In support of both the writ petitions Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following submissions :
(1) The assessment made by the respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in accordance with paragraph 6.17.1 an
