U P S E B Vs. ATMA STEELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in both the matters.

(2.) The respondent obtains electricity from the appellant. On 10th December, 1992 a surprise check was made at the respondent's place and it was found that in the potential transformer (PT) a fuse had been blown off with the result that it was not supplying any electricity from primary cable to secondary cable and, as a consequences thereof the quantum of electricity consumed was not being correctly recorded in the meter. A notice was issued requiring the respondent to show cause as to why charges for less consumption be not charged for the period December 1991 to December 1992. In order to avoid the disconnection of the electricity, the respondent, with the permission of the authority, installed a new PT on the respondent undertaking to pay in future for the supply given to it.

(3.) On 29th December, 1992 respondent gave a reply to the show cause notice and inter alia raised a dispute that the PT and the meter panelling were not working properly. After taking into consideration the reply, the Executive Engineer on 22nd January, 1993 made an assessment of Rs. 57,77,891.38 and raised a bill. Thereupon the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad challenging the said assessment. The Civil Judge passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from recovering the assessment amount and from disconnecting the supply. In the written statement filed by the appellant herein the demand of Rs. 57,77,891.38 was justified. According to the appellant the respondent, while the suit was still pending, filed an application before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 20th February, 1993 purporting to be under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 requiring the Inspector to exercise his jurisdiction under the said provision and to quash the aforesaid assessment which had been made by the Executive Engineer. On 6th April, 1993 the respondent filed an application before the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, inter-alia, prayed that the electricity which had been disconnected should be restored and the respondent be permitted to pay the aforesaid demand by instalments. Along with the application 12 post dated cheques were filed and the respondent gave an undertaking to the Court to the effect that if after the acceptance of the cheques and restoration of electricity any cheque is not encashed or it is dishonoured then the appellant herein will have the right to disconnect the electricity of the respondent without any notice. This application was made while reserving the right of the respondent to make a reference for arbitration. On the same day, the trial Court accepted the application and ordered the reconnection of the electricity and it was specifically mentioned in this order that the conditions mentioned in the respondent's application will form part of the order. 3 days thereafter, the suit itself was withdrawn.