AFZAL HUSAIN Vs. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sri Afzal Husain has prayed for the quashing of the assessment bills in question (vide Annexure 1), for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite-parties not to give effect to the said assessment bills (Annexure I) and to restore the electric supply to his ice factory till such time as the Chief Electrical Inspector decides the dispute and till the petitioner defaults or neglects to pay the amount legally due from him and for other consequential reliefs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short the Board), through its Chairman, Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division (Residency), Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking, Lucknow and Chief Electrical Inspector, U.P. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow are arrayed as opposite-parties in the petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, sans unnecessary details, may be stated thus : The petitioner runs an ice factory, which was set up in 1989. The electricity connection to the said factory was energised after due sanction of the Board, opposite party No. 1. The petitioner's ice factory has a sanctioned load of 90 H.P. The petitioner paid in full the electricity charges as per the bills served on him from time to time and no amount was legally outstanding on 11-10-1995 when the electricity supply of the petitioner's factory was suddenly disconnected. Such disconnection, contends the petitioner, is in gross violation of the provisions in Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act), which provides, inter alia that a notice for disconnection of electricity can only be issued where any person neglects to pay charges for energy due from a licensee in respect of supply of energy to him. In the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had neglected to pay charges for energy or any other sum due to be paid to the Board, supply to his factory could not have been disconnected. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Board has illegally raised assessment bills suo motu allegedly on the basis of an inspection made on 27-9-1995 without any notice to the petitioner. A copy of the inspection Report dated 27-9-1995 with the endorsement made on behalf of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition. Referring to the endorsement therein, the petitioner contends that the observation/finding by the authority recorded in the report regarding slow running of the meter was disputed by him. The assessment bill as per Annexure 3 has been prepared suo motu and without any reference to the petitioner though he had seriously disputed the finding recorded during the alleged inspection on 27-9-1995. On the basis of the illegal presumption assessment bill for Rs. 10,21,141.72 (Annexure 3) has been raised. The petitioner contends that the entire action of the Board and its functionaries is vitiated being in blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that though the Board was legally obliged under Section 26 (4) and (6) of the Act to refer the matter to the Chief Electrical inspector for determining correctness of the meter since a dispute has been raised on behalf of the petitioner on the inspection note itself, no action in that regard was taken and even before the time granted in the bill for payment of the amount by 19-10-1995 was over, the supply of electricity to the petitioner's factory was suddenly discontinued in the morning of 11-10-1995. By such arbitrary and illegal action of the Board and its functionaries, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced. By the letter dated 15-10-1995 (Annexure 5 ), the petitioner made a request to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division (Residency), Lucknow Electricity Supply Undertaking, Lucknow, opposite-party No. 2 to forthwith restore supply of electricity to his factory and also requested the Board to refer the matter pertaining to the alleged slow running of the meter to the Chief Electrical Inspector; but no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner. After service of the notice dated 15-10-1995 the petitioner has referred the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the running of the meter. The assessment bill prepared during the pendency of the dispute before the Chief Electrical Inspector is against the statutory provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act. In such compelling circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs notified earlier.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Shankar Singh, Assistant Engineer (Revenue) Electricity Distribution Division Urban, Lucknow Electric Supply Undertakings, Lucknow, on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, the allegations made and contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition have been refuted. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that there was no illegal disconnection of the electricity of the petitioner's unit, nor there was any breach of the provisions of the Act. According to the opposite-parties, disconnection in the case of the petitioner's unit was done on the basis of the checking made by the vigilance party on 27-9-1995 when it was found that plastic seal from the meter box was missing and all paper seals were with fake signatures and one polarity of CT was found reversed and after correcting the polarity of CT meter was recording actual consumption which was more than what was found recorded previously; it was noticed that the petitioner was consuming electricity unauthorisedly and by interfering with the CT wire, the meter was recording two-third less consumption than the actual consumption. It is the further case of the opposite-parties that when the meter was opened and tested it was found that one polarity was reversed; and thereafter the polarity was corrected; the opposite parties contend that on account of reversed polarity, the meter was recording only one-third consumption than the actual consumption. This checking was done before Assistant Engineer ( Meter). According to the opposite-parties from the aforementioned report it was clear that the petitioner was using electricity unauthorisedly and committed theft of electricity. A first information report was also lodged against the petitioner under Section 39 of the Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite-parties contend that in these circumstances the Board was justified in disconnecting supply of electricity to the petitioner's unit and was also entitled to raise assessment bill in accordance with the provision; of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 (for short the Regulations). The petitioner is liable to pay the amount as per the demand raised in the Annexure 3. but he has failed to pay the said amount. It is also contended by the opposite-parties that since the petitioner was found to be using electricity unauthorisedly and was committing theft of electricity, therefore, the Board was entitled to disconnect the supply under Regulation 22 of the Regulations. The opposite-parties further contend that Section 24 of the Act has no application to the case of the petitioner and his case is governed by Section 39 of the Act read with Regulation 22. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the assessment as per Annexure 3, it is open to him to file an appeal before the Revised Committee under Regulation 23(ii) of the Regulations. According to the opposite-parties the disconnection of supply of electricity to the petitioner's unit was done for non-payment of amount of assessment bill and also on account of theft of energy.