IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Prakash Singh v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 12602 of 2020 (I); Decided on 25.9.2020.
Electricity Act, 2003 -- Ss. 126, 127 and 145 -- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -- S. 2 (I) (e) -- petitioner is HT consumer of Vidyut Vitaran Company -- suprise check conducted on his premises -- irregulaties in consumption of load found -- on basis of assessment of load, impugned demand notice issued -- section 145 bars jurisdiction of civil Court -- person aggrieved by final order may prefer appeal -- final decision by assessing officer on assessment of "unauthorised use of electricity" is a "quasi-judicial" decision -- does not fall within meaning of "consumer dispute" -- petitioner may prefer appeal. (2013) 8 SCC 491 followed. [Paras 6 & 7]
fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 & /kkjk 126] 127 rFkk 145 & miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/fku;e] 1986 & /kkjk 2¼1½¼³½ & ;kph fo|qr forj.k daiuh dk ,p Vh miHkksDrk gS & mlds ifjlj ij vkdfLed fujh{k.k fd;k x;k & Hkkj ds miHkksx esa vfu;ferrk,a ikbZ xbZ & Hkkj ds fu/kkZj.k ds vk/kkj ij vk{ksfir ekax lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ & /kkjk 145 esa flfoy U;k;ky; dk otZu gS & vafre vkns'k ls O;fFkr O;fDr vihy ÁLrqr dj ldrk gS & ^^fo|qr ds vÁkf/kd`r mi;ksx** ds fu/kkZj.k ij fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk vafre fofu'p; ^^U;kf;ddYi** fofu'p; gS & ^^miHkksDrk fookn** ds vFkZ ds Hkhrj ugha vkrk & ;kph vihy dj ldrk gSA ¼2013½ 8 ,l lh lh 491 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by demand notice dated 20.2.2020 issued by Assistant Engineer,Airport Zone, M.P. Paschim Vidyut Vitaran Co. for recovery penal amount of Rs.1,10,830/- under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act.
2. The petitioner is HT consumer of M.P. Paschim Vidyut Vitaran Co. That on 23.9.2020 a surprise check was conducted on his premises and irregularities in consumption of load were found and on the basis of the assessment of load the impugned demand has been issued to the petitioner, hence the present petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid calculation has been made treating the electricity meter as M.R.D.M. meter or smart meter, but the fact remains that the petitioner's premises is having an old meter.
4. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the demand of Rs.1,10,830/- was made from the petitioner, but thereafter, the respondents have again calculated the amount and finally, it came to Rs.88,880/-. The fresh demand notice has been sent to the petitioner and a copy has also been filed in this writ petition He further submits that the petitioner is having remedy of appeal under section 127 of the Act against the aforesaid order before the appellate authority. The demand was sent to the petitioner, but he has refused to acknowledge it, hence the writ petition be dismissed.
5. The Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad, (2013) 8 SCC 491 has held as under :-
39. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the assessing officer to make assessment in the case of “unauthorised use of electricity”. It provides that if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in “unauthorised use of electricity”, he shall assess the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefitted by such use, the section reads as under:
“126. Assessment.—(1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.
(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.
(4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him:
(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
(6) The assessment under the section shall be made at
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.