HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES L 3 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AMBATTUR MADRAS 58 Vs. ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER O AND M MADRAS ELECTRICITY SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION/NORTH FIRST CROSS ROAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AMBATTUR MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are running Small Scale Industry. THEy have an electricity supply to their factory and their Account No. is 27:116:c4. THE premises were inspected by the Anti-Power THEft Squad and it was found that there was enough materials to suggest pilferage of electrical energy. THE officers found a hole intentionally drilled on the bottom side of the meter. From the above artificial hole it was possible for the consumer to stop the meter from rotating. Consequently, the respondents found that the petitioner had been guilty of stealing electricity energy. Apart from initiating action to prosecute the petitioner a notice was issued on 23. 5. 1983 proposing to recover an estimated loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 1,66,413. THE petitioner was given an option to pay 50 per cent of the amount and get reconnection of the electricity supply. On 28. 5. 1983 a final order was passed assessing the damage to the tune of Rs. 1,65,442 and a working sheet was annexed to the order. THE working sheet proceeds on the basis that there were two shifts in the factory and the total working hours was 14 hours. On that basis the consumption for the month is worked out as 7806 Units in accordance with the terms and conditions of the supply and the same is multiplied by 12. In other words, the loss is estimated for the period of one year on the assumption that the theft must have taken place one year before the date of inspection. Challenging the said order, writ Petition No. 5241 of 1983 was filed. Sathiadev, J. gave directions in the said writ petition in identical terms as contained in W. P. No. 6935 of 1983. THErefore one has to look into the directions given in W. P. No. 6935 of 1983. THE directions are as follows: 'it is now for the respondent to hold the enquiry in which full and fair opportunity to be extended to the petitioner and after entertaining the representations by it, to proceed to pass orders furnishing reasons for each one of the conclusions arrived at therein. THEreafter, the amount, if any which becomes payable to be paid by the petitioner in two quarterly instalments to begin from the date of the receipt of the order passed. Until then, the service connection to be maintained.'

(2.) . Thereafter a notice was given on 19. 9. 1985 fixing the date of enquiry as 30. 9. 1985. On the date of the enquiry the petitioner had raised several objections, some of which may be noticed here. The assumption that the factory was run in two shifts was disputed. It was also contended that on the basis of the average consumption of electricity, it would be gathered that there was no theft of electricity. The petitioners also allege that there must have been a sabotage of the factory on the date of inspection. Necessary monthly statements of electrical consumption was also furnished. It was also pointed out that in the year 1983 there was a power cut and the meter was being regularly inspected. The assessment to the tune of Rs. 1,65,442 was disputed. After the said enquiry and the explanation of the petitioner the respondents have passed the impugned order on 13. 2. 1986 wherein they have assessed the penal charges to Rs. 1,65,442 and they have only added other charges and making a grand total of Rs. 1,66,413. No explanation is offered for arriving at the penal charges as Rs. 1,65,442. The order is attacked by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the following grounds: " (i) It is not in accordance with the directions given by Sathiadev, J. (ii) The respondents have not considered the various objections raised by the petitioners, (iii) It is not a speaking order, (iv) There is no finding regarding theft of electrical energy.