ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the order dated 22.8.1997 passed by the appellate authority being Appeal No. I-D-II of 1997 has since been challenged.

(2.) It is alleged that a new meter was Installed in respect of the petitioner's service connection No. 65/3807 by the Kanpur Electric Supply Authority, hereinafter called as the 'KESA'. U. P. State Electricity Board, Kanpur, on 24.10.1996. A reading of the meter for determination of the consumption of electric energy was taken on 28.1.1997 after verification of the seal of the meter by an officer of the KESA. According to the petitioner normally when meter reading was taken, the seal number and the ampere number whereof were not noted. Subsequently thereafter another meter reading was noted by meter reader of KESA on 3.2.1997, which reveals that in case of bulk meter reading a different form is used and that it did not note the seal number or the ampere load etc. A checking was made by the respondents on 4.2.1997 and thereafter a notice was served on the petitioner on 8.2.1997. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 13.2.1997. The Executive Engineer KESA, Kanpur by his order dated 26/27.2.1999 disposed of the petitioner's representation through which he had rectified the assessment to an amount of Rs. 57,42,191.81. An appeal was preferred against the said order under Regulation 23 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulation, 1984, which was registered as Assessment Appeal No. 1-D-1I of 1997. By an order dated 22.8.1997 the said appeal was dismissed affirming the assessment made by the Executive, Engineer. These two orders have Since been challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr, H. N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the said orders on the ground that there was nothing to show that there was any theft of electricity. It may be a defect in the meter. Then again the meter was checked on 28.1.1997 by an officer of the KESA and not by a meter reader. It was not mere meter reading but also checking. Therefore, according to him even if assuming but not admitting that there was any theft, in that event, the same can be stretched upto 28.1.1997 and not beyond. Therefore, the period is to be counted from 29.1.1997 till the date of checking or otherwise. Whereas while calculating the same, the respondents have assessed the same from 24.10.1996 viz., the date when the new meter was installed. None of the authorities concerned had considered this aspect and had acted illegally and arbitrarily. The order impugned, therefore, suffers from ex facie perversity. He also contends that there being no proof of theft, only on the basis of the allegation made by the respondents the calculation could not be made at three times of the amount, which would have been alleged to be consumed. He further. contends that the Regulation 22, provides for mode of assessment as indicated in the schedule through Regulation 1984. The said schedule or Annexure-1 provides for a formula viz., L x F x H x D. According to him 'L' was 211 KV and 'F' was 0.75 and the number of days would only be 7 days being the difference of period from 28.1.1997 till 4.2.1997. However, Mr. Singh submits that the number of days at best be 8 days including 28.1.1997. This amount would be around Rs. 1,38.938.98. He further contends, even if the total period fs calculated at 104 days, still then amount would come to Rs. 14,45,098.20 and by no stretch of Imagination it would be Rs. 57 lakhs and odd as calculated. So far as the hours is concerned it is not disputed. Inasmuch as originally, Mr. Agarwal contended that the hours was calculated at 23.2598 whereas Mr. Singh had contended that it would be 21.05769 hours. But ultimately Mr. Agarwal had agreed to 21.06769 hours, as contended by Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh also contends that the assessment is mala fide and arbitrary and no reasonable person could have arrived at such a calculation on the basis of the formula. The calculation made by the respondent is excessive and based on no material. On these grounds he prays that the orders of assessment be quashed.