KANDAGE GAMINI DE SUVA

Vs.

NISHAN DE SILVA

OFFICER IN CHARGE POLICE STATION PILIYANDALA AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
SISIRA J.DE ABREW J
ANIL GOONERATNE J.
VIJITH K. MALALGODA PC J.
SC FR 431/2005
30.08.2017

Constitution Articles 12 (1), 13(1) and 13(2) - False complaint - Arrest - Domestic electricity connection Commercial connection - Transfer of title - Deed of Transfer - Electricity meter - False implication - Consumer - Electricity Act.

Petitioner's position is that he has been arrested by the police on a false information. He further states that Electricity Board officials falsely

implicated him to put him in trouble on an alleged tampering of the Electricity Meter. Petitioner blames the 8th Respondent who closely associates police officers of the Piliyandala police. Petitioner also states the 9th Respondent instigated the impugned arrest of him. Supreme Court granted leave to proceed for alleged violation of Articles 12 (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Constitution.

Petitioner purchased the premises in dispute on or about 02.08.1999, where the disputed electric meter was installed. Petitioner also purchased the adjacent land in or about year 2000. He built another house and leased the small house to the 8th Respondent. Electricity and other utility bills to be paid by 8th Respondent. On 07.08.2004 the 8th Respondent handed over the keys of the premises through an employee of his. Petitioner states that Electricity supply had been disconnected and the Petitioner complained to the police. But there was no proper response from police. Thereafter Petitioner also found an electricity shortage and informed the police, as well as Kesbewa Ceylon Electricity Board unit (In writing).

There was no response from the police as well as the Ceylon Electricity Board.

Respondents rely on Section 67 of the Ceylon Electricity Act and plead that there was no violation by the Respondents. Petitioner had not changed the tariff system to commercial and continued under domestic tariff. Respondent urge that it was an illegal connection and implicated the Petitioner. 8th Respondent absent and unrepresented.

HELD:

1. Officials of CEB and police should have done a proper investigation to bring the culprits to book. One cannot proceed to implicate, and police could not have arrested the Petitioner in the absence of cogent reasons and evidence. To interfere with any person's liberty without a valid cause is a greater violation. Court need to protect the Petitioner when violation of fundamental rights are apparent. Petitioner complained to the CEB promptly about the tampering of the meter and the consumption of electricity by 8th Respondent illegally. He also made a police complaint. There was no immediate response to either of them by the authorities concerned. It is regrettable the way a consumer of Electricity was treated by CEB.

2. I find that the law does not merely penalise the person in whose name the electricity was provided. There is no strict liability attached

to a consumer under the statute. The consumer could be held responsible only in a case where he is held liable for tampering with a meter, and only with sufficient proof of that fact. On a perusal of the Magistrate's Court proceedings I find that the Petitioner was acquitted. This fact of course need to be only considered by this court but it would certainly add to his reputation to prove innocence. Arrest of a person could be done only according to procedure established by law.

APPLICATION for violation of fundamental Rights.

Case referred to:

1. Menaka Gandhi vs. India Air (1978 ) SC 597 at 691 - 692

J.C. Weliamuna P.C. with Shantha Jayawardena and Senura Abeywardena for the Petitioner

S. Herath S.S.C. for the 15th - 7th, 9th and 10th Respondents 8th Respondent is absent and unrepresented.

Cur.adv.vult

September 27,2017

ANIL GOONERATNE J.

This is a Fundamental Rights Application pertaining to an electricity meter