USHA BELTRON LIMITED Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board in disconnecting the supply of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner No. 1 and raising a provisional compensatory bill dated 17 January, 2000 for a sum of Rs. 40,39,50,747/- and further for a declaration that there has been no pilferage or theft of electricity by the petitioners in respect of consumer No. HJ/AP041.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that in the year 1973 by virtue of an agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and the Board the Board started supplying electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner for a sanctioned contract demand of 10000 KVA which was time to time enhanced by supplementary agreements to 19500 KVA. In 1994-95 the petitioner-company installed a Mini Blast Furnace used for the manufacture of Molten metal and the use of Molten metal in the Electric Arc Furnace of petitioner company as chargemix also significantly reduced the amount of electricity required to produce steel at the said factory. It is contended that for the first time disputes between petitioner company and the Electricity Board arose when the vigilance department of the Board filed a purported complaint alleging pilferage and/or illegal abstraction of electricity between the period April, 1986 and December, 1988. The proceedings pursuant to the said purported complaint are totally at stand-still and the same have been virtually abandoned by the Board who obviously have realised that the said purported complain was and is absolutely untrue. It is further contended that in January, 1996 Board formed a High Power Committee to assess the purported loss of energy in respect of electricity supplied by the Board to the petitioner company. The said Committee unconditionally admitted and acknowledged that the bills raised by the Board upon the petitioner company between 1991 to 1995 based on the readings of the meter installed at the said factory were in order. It is further stated that in 1996 Board raised a bill upon the petitioner company for Rs. 11.42 crores being the alleged dues on account of alleged loss for the period from 17th June, 1974 to December, 1990 and against the said bill the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1388/96 (R). The matter ultimately went to Supreme Court where a dispute has been referred to arbitration which is still continuing. The petitioners' further case is that after November, 1998 the meter installed at take off structure became defective and ceased to function which has not been replaced so far. However, the authorities of the Board continued the cross check the recordings made at factory and with the recordings of consumption made on the grid panel meter in the control room after November, 1998 up to date. The authorities of the Board have acknowledged that the comparison of such date shows that the metering done at the factory end for the entire period up to and including the month of November, 1999 was in order. It is alleged that the official of the Board made an inspection in the factory premises on 4-12-89 which was premeditated and pre-planned for the purpose of creating a ground to allege pilferage of electricity by the petitioner company. Without giving any opportunity to verify the correctness and contents of said report the representative of the petitioner company was compelled to sign the said report. Subsequently by letters the authorities of the Board asked the petitioner company to provide diverse figures, documents and information, which was replied by the company and although payments were provided. Thereafter again meter installation and equipments in the factory premises of the petitioner was inspected on 13-1-2000 and submitted a report, on the basis of which the Board lodged an FIR in Gamharia Police Station alleging the pilferage of electricity by the petitioner and the supply of electricity was stopped. On the basis of said inspection report the Board raised a provisional compensatory bill on account of alleged theft of energy as per Clause 16.9 of the Tariff 1993 for a sum of Rs. 40,39,50,747/-.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit the respondent-Board stated, inter alia, that during inspection of the factory premises of the petitioner enormous evidence was found to prove interference by the petitioner with the metering unit which established that the petitioner was in fact committing pilferage of electricity. It is stated that the incoming line was found to be bare up to certain point. Obviously the taping of the said line was removed to make it bare. The incoming line is taped to prevent the same from being short circulated by connecting wires to it. If the incoming wire is short circuited it adversely affects the recording the consumption of electricity and the load being availed of by the consumer. The evidence of sign of some external burnt was found on the bare conductor. It is alleged that on account of this it was obvious that attempt was made in the past first to bare the conductor by removing the tape and then to short circuit the same by connecting it with an external wire, which is an artificial device to do so. It is further stated that both ends of the wire attached to the wooden poles is connected to the incoming and outgoing wires of the CTPT, which results in much less recording of units. The out coming jumpers in eastern phase was found bare after 21/2 feet. This also was an evidence that the tape therefrom was removed for short circuiting. The next evidence was that the lower portion of the L conductors was found open up to a length of 1/2 inch, which was also done by the petitioner for the same purpose. The respondent-Board was, therefore, justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity in the premises of the petitioner and raising a supplementary bill for loss sustained by the Board.