BALAJI PURANDAS Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, D P E OFFICE, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE, ANDHRA PRADESH S E B "RAFAT MANZIL", HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, quashing the notice, dated 29-4-66 issued by the Assistant engineer, Detection of pilferage Energy. By that notice, the Assistant Engineer in formed the Writ-Petitioner, Balaji Purandas that the supply to his premises was disconnected for the two reasons, namely, (1) pilferage of electrical energy by tampering with the main seals, and that the actual consumption was observed to be about 8,000 Units per month, and (2) entertaining a tenant by a sub-meter for 10 horsepower flour mill, that the petitioner was previously found indulging in malpractices, that the first notice was given on 21-10-54, and that the petitioner" was a habitual pilferer of energy. The notice also stated that if the petitioner wanted immediate reconnection pending final assessment of loss to the Board, he may obtain by paying Rs. 4,350/- and some additional charges.

(2.) The above notice is impugned by the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) that the procedure prescribed in paragraph 238 of the Andhra Pradesh electricity Manual, Volume I, had not been followed:. (2) that Rule 10 of the Notification, dated 1-3-66 was also not observed;-and (3) that the principle of natural justice was not complied with, as no notice was given before the supply was disconnected. This petition is opposed by the Electricity Board. I shall now consider the validity of the above contentions. The supply, and distribution of electrical energy is now, vested with the State Electricity board, constituted under Section 5 of the Electrictity (Supply) Act (LIV of 1948) hereinafter called the Act. Under Section. 18 of the Act, the Board is charged with the general duty of promoting the coordinate development of the generation, supply, and distribution of Electricity within the State in the most efficient, and economical manner. Section 49 of the Act empowers the Board to supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms, and conditions at it may from time to time fix, having regard to the nature and geographical position of the supply, and the purposes for which it is required. The petitioner being the owner of oil and dour mills requiring considerable quantity of energy, is an industrial consumer, and the rights, and obligations of the consumer, are governed by a contract which is usually entered into between the parties. But it cannot be and in fact is not disputed that the terms of the contract are subject to the conditions that the Board may frame under section 49 of the Act. The Board by B. P. Ms. No. 347, dated 24-7-1963 issued a notification under section 49 of the Act to the following effect:10. "where any consumer is detected in the commission of any malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy, including unauthorised alterations to installations, unauthorised extentions, and the use of devices to commit theft of electrical energy, the Board may without prejudice to its other rights, cause the consumer's supply to be forthwith disconnected. ".

(3.) It issued another Notification B. P. Ms. No. 40, dated 21-1-1964 to the effect that for checking the pilferage of energy, and other malpractices in the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the post of an Assistant Engineer has been created, and instructions for detections, and prevention of theft of energy have been issued by the Board's Proceedings dated 24-7-1963, and the functions of the various officers also were indicated in this Notification. Whenever the Assistant engineer, in the course of his investigation, and inspection, notices a consumer committing malpractices with reference to electrical energy, he may cause the consumer's service to be disconnected forthwith, and when a consumer is said to commit malpractice has been stated in the proceedings, and it included committing theft of electrical energy by adopting any device, or using power during peak load hours without authorisation; or using power in violation of the terms of the contract with the Board, and for committing a malpractice, the consumers renders his service liable for prompt disconnection without notice. The Notification also states that the Assistant Engineer, if he deems it necessary to disconnect the supply, he should report the same to the concerned superintending Engineer, and also intimate the consumer the reasons for such disconnection, and invite his representations. If the damage sustained by the board to be estimated by the Assistant Engineer, he should,submit his proposals together withall the necessary information to the concerned Superintending engineer, who shall estimate the damages, after giving an opportunity to the consumer to make his representations, in that regard. In assessing the damage, the Superintending Engineer should take into account primarily the value of the energy, which can reasonably be presumed to be stolen, and the injury, if any, to the Board's equipment, and all action should be taken reasonably early. The Notification also provides for an appeal to the Chief Engineer, - It also states that the Supply would be restored to the consumer on paying the damages, ascertained as payable by the Superintending Engineer, or an appeal by the Chief Engineer, and pending an assessment by the Superintending Engineer. It also states that the supply would be restored on the consumer depositing personally an amount equal to half the sum estimated as damages by the assistant Engineer in his proposals to the Superintending Engineer. The question for consideration is whether the notice impugned violates any of the above conditions isued by the Board under Saction 49 of the Act It it manifest that the Assistant Engineer who issued the notice is the officer designated to implement these instructions. He has given two reasons for disconnection of the supply, namely, pilferage of energy as well as using the energy' for a purpose not authorised, i. e. , for a flour mill. Both these reasons empowered the Officer to disconnect the supply, and he estimated the damage and demanded-payment of half the amount, which according to him is Rs. 4,350/-it cannot be said that the disconnection by the Assistant Engineer, in these circumstances, has in any way violated the Act, or the rules which have got the statutory force.