TIRUPATI INDUSTRIES Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 27.9.1996 issued by the Senior Executive Engineer/Operation, Focal Point Division (Special), Ludhiana (respondent No. 2) requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 18,38,587/- in lieu of alleged theft of electricity. The other prayer made in the petition is for quashing the decision taken by the Board Level Dispute Settlement Review Committee vide which the demand created against the petitioner has not only been upheld but a further direction has been given to charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 27.9.1996.

(2.) The facts on which there is no dispute between the parties are that in 1982, the competent authority of the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter described as the Board) released electric connection to the petitioner who is engaged in the manufacture of mild steel wires of different measurements and qualities. Initially, the connected load sanctioned for the petitioner's industry was 155.740 KW. This was enhanced from time to time and at the time of replacement of meter in 1995, the sanctioned load was 523.092 K.W. The meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was periodically checked by the staff of the Board and till December, 1995 no defect was found in the instruments. During the course of inspection conducted on 1.12.1995, the Senior Executive Engineer, M.M.T.S. (Enforcement) No. 2, Ludhiana found that the meter was running slow by 2%. Therefore, a supplementary bill of Rs. 11,583/- was raised which was paid by the petitioner. Soon thereafter, the petitioner requested to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Focal Point, Ludhiana, that the meter installed in its premises may be replaced so that it may not be charged for slow metering. This request of the petitioner was accepted. However, just after 22 days of the installation of new meter, respondent No. 2 issued memo Annexure P.3 dated 27.9.1996 and called upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 18,38,587/- by accusing it of having committed theft of energy. In that letter, it was mentioned that all the four M.E. seals of the meter, which were affixed in 1991-92 were found to be fake and two paper seals which were affixed by M.M.T.S. Ludhiana were found to be fixed again. The electric supply to the petitioner's establishment was also disconnected.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the demand raised by respondent No. 2 by controverting the allegation of theft. On its request, the dispute was referred to the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee. In its meeting held on 31.3.1997, the said committee decided the petitioner's case in the following manner:-