EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. INDIAN PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 2nd December, 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the present opponent. The learned Single Judge has directed present Appellant, who was the Respondent in the petition, to recalculate the supplementary bill on the basis of connected load of 31.5 HP and to give credit of the excess amount, if any, out of the amount deposited before the appellate authority.

(2.) The relevant facts involved in present appeal are that the opponent herein i.e. the original Petitioner is a Low Tension-consumer ('L.T. Consumer', for short) of present Appellant. The Appellant herein is a licensee under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the other Appellants are its officers. The Appellant has allowed low tension connection of electricity supply to the original Petitioner i.e. the consumer. The Petitioner-consumer (hereinafter referred to as 'Consumer') has been granted contracted load of 90 HP and as per the contract between the consumer and Appellant-licensee, the applicable tariff is LTP-I. It appears that on 9th September, 2002, the officers of the Appellant-licensee paid a surprise visit at the premises of the consumer and inspected the electricity installation. According to the Appellant-licensee, during the said visit-inspection it was found that the consumer had indulged into unauthorized consumption of electricity supply which amounted to theft of electricity, under the provisions of the Act. According to the Appellant-licensee, the provisions under the Act permits and authorizes the Appellant-licensee to raise supplementary bill in cases of theft and for the said purpose (i.e. for raising supplementary bill), the Appellant-licensee can calculate the bill amount by taking into account the actual/ connected load. It is clear that in view of such provisions under the Act, ordinarily whenever officers of the Appellant-licensee inspect any installation, they also examine the actual connected load and such details are recorded in the inspection note. According to the Petitioner-consumer, on 9th February, 2002 when the inspection was carried out, the connected load was found to be of 31.5 HP (though contracted/permitted load is of 90 HP). Since the officers of the Appellant-licensee found that the consumer had indulged into the theft of electricity, the meter was removed as per the prescribed procedure and for the purpose of testing, the said meter was sent to laboratory for test-report. According to Appellant-licensee, the laboratory report also confirmed that the Petitioner-consumer had indulged into act of theft of electricity. The Appellant-licensee, thereafter, issued supplementary bill in accordance with the applicable provisions. The calculation for determining the supplementary bill, amount was made by applying A X B X C X D formula and the supplementary bill dated 25th April, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 6,29,754.73 was issued and served upon the consumer. The Appellant-licensee also disconnected the electricity supply. Subsequently when the consumer deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,954.73 on 5th May, 2003, the electricity supply connection was restored. The consumer was aggrieved by the supplementary bill. Hence the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate committee. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. B-337/2003. After hearing the parties, the appellate authority partly allowed the appeal. However, the consumer's contention that it had not indulged into theft of electricity was not accepted. The appellate authority passed order dated 10th September, 2003 and directed the Appellant-licensee to revise the supplementary bill by taking 153 days as the chargeable days and to apply 0.4. factor. Aggrieved by the appellate-committee's order, the Petitioner-consumer preferred the petition. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2009 has directed the appellate-licensee to recalculate the supplementary bill, on the basis of connected load of 31.5 HP and give credit of the excess amount deposited by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in the future bills. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellate licensee to take into account the connected load i.e. 31.5 HP and not 90 HP i.e not the contracted load.

(3.) The Appellant-licensee claims that the learned Single Judge overlooked the relevant provisions under condition No. 34 and, therefore, the directions are unsustainable.