FAR EAST TANNING COMPANY Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WEST VELLORE ELECTRICITY SYSTEM GANDHI NAGAR VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by a consumer enjoying the electricity connection challenging the order passed dated 23.11.1989. By the impugned order, a financial liability was fixed against the petitioner and the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.14,03,060.

(2.) THE petitioner-Company deals in leather business since 1971 and claims that it is exporting good quality finished leather. It is the claim of the petitioner that it consumed 3000 to 3500 units of electricity and that there used to be periodical check ups of the meters. THE affidavit further suggests that there was a certificate issued in respect of the correctness of the meter on 1.2.1980 by the Divisional Engineer i.e., the second respondent herein. THE petitioner then refers to a surprise check made by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Madras, dated 6.9.1980 and claims that the so-called inspection was against all the procedural normal. It is then claimed that the meter was disconnected on 6.9.1980, and that the police from Vellore removed the meters on 7.9.1980. It is then claimed that the Divisional Engineer had issued an order in his letter dated 16.9.1980 suggesting therein that one of the rivets of the right side in the meter cover was removed and that a hole was found to have been made to facilitate arresting the rotation of the disc of the meter, and this amounted to theft of energy. According to the petitioner, it was claimed in that letter that against the sanctioned load of 92 H.P., some additional load was found connected and utilised through the same meter. THE theft of energy was assessed at Rs.8,87,696.10 and the bill for Rs.10,59,736 inclusive of the assessment charges, etc. was presented to the petitioner. It is the claim of the petitioner that in this letter, there was no charge of theft. It is also claimed that this demand was illegal as the period for which this demand was made was also not property calculated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, pointed out that the contentions raised by the petitioner could not be entertained in this writ petition as they pertained to the factual positions. LEARNED counsel further contended that the findings recorded by the first authority and the appellate authority were essentially in the realm of findings of facts which could not be interfered with by this Court under its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.