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

2014 Supreme(All) 1933

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
M/s. KISSAN CHILLING UDYOG AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12840 of 2012, decided on 5th September, 2014)

Advocates:
Counsel :
B.C. Rai for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Shivam Yadav and Shobhit Dube for the Respondents.

Headnote:Electricity Act, 2003—Section 126—Electricity Supply Code, 2005—Para 6.8—U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958—Section 3—Theft of Electricity—Demand notice—Legality of—Notice not issued regarding theft of electrical energy and on quantum of assessment—Facts contained in checking report by itself not sufficient to serve the requirement of statute—Vague and unspecified notice regarding tempering of seal though such fact not mentioned in checking report—Observation made in show-cause notice is a clear misreading of checking report—Impugned order unsustainable hence set aside. [Paras 15 to 18]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate for respondents.

2. The writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 23.5.2009 passed by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Budaun (respondent No. 4) under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2003”); the appellate order dated 3.2.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly (respondent No. 3) and the consequential demand notice dated 23.2.2012 issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 3 of U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1958”).

3. The facts giving rise to the dispute in present writ petition, in brief, are stated as under.

4. The petitioner is running a Chilling Plant at Village Lauda Baheri, District Budaun. It has got an electric connection, bearing No. 008568/1203 with sanctioned electric load of 48 Horse Power (hereinafter referred to as the “HP”), which is said to have been enhanced to 65 HP on 22.1.2008. It is said that an inspection was made by officials of Mandhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “MVVNL”), the Licensee, authorized to distribute electricity in the area of District Budaun, on 19.12.2007. They found demand of electric load at petitioner’s chilling plant, recorded was more than the sanctioned load. They suggested that petitioner should get his sanctioned load enhanced. It is in reference thereof, petitioner got electrical load enhanced from 48 HP to 65 HP.

5. On 24.8.2008, checking was made at petitioner’s premises by a team consisting of Assistant Engineer (Meter), Electricity Test Division, Budaun and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Budaun. It recorded following comments in respect of meter test:

^^esu ehVj tks fd ,y-Vh- ij yxk gS n'kkZ;h tk jgh djsUV ehVj dh lh-Vh- vkmViqV ds cjkcj ugha gS tks fd gksuh pkfg, vr% esu ehVj lafnX/k ekywe iM+kA

Mcy ehVj n'kkZ;h tk jgh djsUV Hkh mldh lh-Vh- vkmV iqV ds cjkcj ugha gS vr% Mcy ehVj Hkh lafnX/k ekywe iM+kA

nksuksa ehVj dh ,e-vkj-vkbZ- lgk;d vfHk;Urk ¼ehVj½ }kjk dh x;hA

lgk;d vfHk;Urk ¼ehVj ½ nksuksa ehVj ckDl [kksyus ij ik;k x;k fd ehVj dh lHkh lhys VSEiMZ gSA vr% duSD'ku Jh eqdqy jLrksxh] izHkkjh voj vfHk;Urk }kjk nwjHkk"k ij 02-05 cts ¼jkf=½ 132 ds0oh0 lc LVs'ku ls 11 ds0oh0 iape QhMj dk 'kVMkmu ysdj equh'oj bl ykbZueSu ls VªklehVj ls ,p-Vh- tEQij dVokdj duSD'ku dVok fn;kA rRi'pkr lgk;d vfHk;Urk ¼ehVj½ us nksuksa ehVj mrjok fy;s x;sA

Mcy ehVj miHkksDrk izfrfuf/k dh mifLFkfr esa [kksyk x;k vkSj ik;k x;k fd ehVj dh ih-Lkh-ch-esa ,d vfrfjDr ;qfDr yxh gS ftl ij dkyk Vsi yxk feykA bl ;qfDr }kjk gh ehVj }kjk miHkksx ;wfuV dk fu;U=.k gksrk gSA ;g ;qfDr fjeksV }kjk pkfyr gksrh gS fjeksV lkbV ij ugha feykA

nksuksa ehVj lkbV ij lhy eqgj dj Fkkus esa tek fd;s tk jgs gSaA**

(emphasis added)

English translation by the Court

“The current being displayed in the main meter connected with LT is not equal to the one in CT output, which should have been the case. Hence, something foul appeared to be there in the meter. The current being displayed in the Double Meter is also not equal to the one in the CT output.

MRI of both the meters was conducted by Assistant Engineer (Meter).

On opening both the meter boxes, it was found that all seals of the meter were tampered with. Hence, following telephonic call by Mukul Rastogi, In-charge Junior Engineer, the connection was cut off after opting for shut down of 11 KV Fifth Feeder from 132 KV sub-station and getting jumper cable off HT from transmitter through line-man Munishwar at 02:05 o’clock in the night. Thereafter, Assistant Engineer (Meter) got both the meters deinstalled.

The double meter was opened in the presence of consumer-representative and an extra device enveloped in a black tape was found fitted at the PCB of the meter. The unit for consumption in the meter is











































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top