LOHIA MANDILIA Vs. C E S C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this single judgment the aforesaid two matters can be disposed of, as the facts and law involved therein are identically same. Shorn of details of the fact made out in both the writ petitions it would be suffice to narrate the short fact. In both the cases the petitioners, are consumers of M/s. CESC Ltd., being the respondent No. 1. On 4/09/2000 one of the three phases of electric connection of the premises of the petitioners was gutted in fire, as a result whereof, the same was destroyed. On information the CESC officials came to restore the supply line after removing defect occurred due to fire. However, the line was not restored, despite repeated request and representations. On the contrary CESC authorities took a false plea of pilferage of electric energy, by means of tampering of seals of the meters. So, CESC sent a bill of huge amount for payment as condition precedent for restoration of supply line. The petitioners approached concerned Redressal Forum, under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 without any favourable result, ultimately these writ petitions were filed and pursuant to the interim order the line has been restored. In both the writ petitions the vires of amended conditions of supply, namely Clauses 28, 29, 30 as sanctioned by the Government dated 15/05/2000 are challenged. By the aforesaid conditions of supply CESC has been empowered amongst others to disconnect supply line without any notice in suspected cases of pilferage, and realize un-metered consumption of electric energy by pilferage and other charges. Upon proper examination of the body of the petitions I find there is no specific ground in the petition filed in Original Side writ to challenge the vires of the aforesaid conditions of supply, however, in the petition of the Appellate Side the grounds are there. As both the matters are being heard in consolidated manner, I have no option but to decide all the questions raised in both the petitions. The affidavit-in-opposition reveals fact somewhat differently, as it is stated that the petitioners had resorted to the clandestine act of pilferage of electric energy thereby, the petitioners have allowed electric energy to be consumed without any registration in the meter. Incident of breaking out of the fire in one of the phases was mere an isolated incident, but this incident was really an eye-opener to the CESC officials for detection of this pilferage of electric energy.

(2.) Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the petition has argued the case on the question of vires. So, I cannot help to consider his submission, which is summarized as hereunder :

(3.) He contends further that by virtue of Sections 39-44 and 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 cases of theft and pilferage can effectively and comprehensively be dealt with for which no separate provision for adjudication of dispute by in-house procedure under clauses 29 and 30 is necessary. The Act does not contemplate for formation of such in-house tribunal for adjudication of dispute as regard theft and pilferage of electric energy.