JMD ALLOYS LIMITED Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of alloy steel products through the process of induction furnace. It has a High Tension Industrial Electricity connection for running the induction furnaces in its factory. On August 26 and 27, 1999 a team of the officials of the Board inspected the petitioner 'sfactory premises and on the basis of the findings coming to light during the inspection it was found and held that the petitioner was engaged in theft of electricity. On 28.8.1999 the electricity line of the petitioner was disconnected and three days later, on 31.8.1999 it was given a bill for Rs. 8,85,77,131.00 raised under the penal provisions of clause 16.9 of the Board 'stariff.

(2.) THE petitioner then filed C.W.J.C. No. 8939/99 challenging the action of the Board in disconnecting its electricity line and raising a demand against it under clause 16.9 of the tariff. That writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order, dated 27.9.1999 passed by me. In that judgment this court noted some of the material circumstances and findings which, according to the Board, led to the inescapable inference that the unit was engaged in theft of electricity. In 5/1/2013 Page 126 Shobh Nath Ram Versus State Of Bihar paragraphs 9 to 14 of the judgment in the earlier case it was noted as follows : "9. According to the Board, in the inspection held on 26.8.1999 it was found that the unit which had a contract demand of 4800 KVA was having two operational induction furnaces, each of 6 metric tons capacity. Thus, the total capacity of the operational induction furnaces in the unit was 12 metric tons. It is further contended on behalf of the Board that it was well established beyond any doubt that a load of 600 KVA was required for running an induction furnace of 1 metric ton capacity. On that basis a load of 7200 KVA would be required for operation of two induction furnaces, each of 6 metric tons capacity. According to the Board, this was also indicated from the total capacity of transformers at the unit being 7230 KVA. It was stated on behalf of the Board that in the light of the above quoted findings from the inspection report it was plain and clear that the company had unauthorisedly exceeded its contract demand and this alone was sufficient to attract the provisions of clause 16.9 of the tariff. 10. It appears that while the inspection being held on 26.8.1999 was yet to be over it started raining around 8.30 in the eveing and the inspection team was, therefore, unable to examine the seals put on the terminal box of the C.T./P.T. unit. In that situation the C.T./P.T. unit, including the terminal box were covered by a plastic wrapper which was sealed so that the C.T./P.T. unit may be examined on the following day in 'as it is ' condition. In para 11 of the inspection note it was accordingly recorded as under : "11. C.T.P.T. Unit : Seal bit no. 0167673 P signed by BEE/Hq was fixed on terminal of CTPT enclosing there previous seal in plastic cover to main as it is condition and examination." 11. On the following day the inspection team came to examine the C.T./P.T. unit and its terminal box. In respect of the inspection held on 27.8.1999 there is no inspection report but only a seizure memo, (Annexure - 5) Para 3 of the seizure memo which describes the seized article is relevant for the present and it is as under : "3. ZABT KIYE GAYE SAMAN M/s JMD ALLOYS LTD. MAIN LAGA CTPT KE L.T.T. TERMINAL BOX MAIN PURV MAIN LAGAYA GAYA PLASTIC SEAL BIT NO. 045660 P JO TAMPERED PAYA GAYA TATHA HAS - TACCHAR BHI NAHIN PAYA GAYA." 12. The seal bit bearing no. 045660 P which was found tampered with was put on the C.T./PT. terminal box on 14.5.1999 as appearing from the inspection note of that date (Annexure - 2). 5/1/2013 Page 127 Shobh Nath Ram Versus State Of Bihar 13. Mr. Y. V. Giri, with the aid of a plastic model explained to me the construction and main features of the C.T./P.T. box and its terminal. I was told that the C.T./P.T. is the abbreviated form of current transformer -potential transformer. The electric current coming at very high voltage from the main lines of the Board is made to pass through the C.T./P. T. unit in order to suitably bring down the voltage at which the current may be used in the factory. Attached to the main C.T./P.T. box is a smaller box called the C.T./P.T. terminal box. It houses the terminals from which wires go to the metering unit for recording both KVA and unit consumption. Both the main C.T./P.T. box and the C.T./P.T. terminal box are to be kept under seals put by the officials of the Board bearing the signature of the official affixing the seal. If the seal on the C.T./P.T. terminal box is removed the terminals become easily accessible to the consumer and by fiddling with those terminals e.g. by removing the wires or putting wires of higher resistence, the flow of energy to the metering unit can be manipulated and if so desired, the C.T./P.T. terminals can be easily fixed so as to show a very low recording of both KVA and unit consumption. 14. According to Mr. Giri, the seizure memo clearly showed that the seal on the C.T./P.T. terminal box was tampered with. In other words, the petitioner 'smen had reached the C.T./P.T. terminals. Learned counsel further submitted that this objective finding, coupled with the fact that in the petitioner 'sunit there were two induction furnaces with the total capacity of 12 metric tons, requiring energy at 7200 KVA, made it plain and clear that the petitioner 'smen were engaged in the theft of electricity and in withdrawal of energy at a much higher load than the contract demand of the company. In support of the inference Mr. Giri also referred to some other circumstantial materials which are not necessary to be stated here."

(3.) PURSUANT to the direction given by this court the Chief Engineer (Transmission) issued a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner under his memo no. 1926, dated 13.10.1999 enclosing copies of the inspection report, seizure list, F.I.R. and a number of other material documents. The petitioner filed its reply to the show cause on 20.10.1999. Thereafter the Chief Engineer heard the lawyers representing the petitioner and the Board on two dates and finally passed the order dated 27.10.1999. In that order he reiterated the finding that the petitioner was engaged in theft of electricity and the case attracted the provisions of clause 16.9(b) (c) of the tariff. He accordingly directed the Electrical Executive Engineer to issue a fresh bill, in terms of the order, under the provisions of clause 16.9.