Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI N.M. BANKA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/11/1996
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The following order in this case was passed by us on
6th November, 1996 :
"While we propose to give reasons for our Order later,
the following s the operative and final Order in the
Special Leave Petition.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed with the following directions :
(1) Within one month from today,
Respondents No. 1 - consumer shall
deposit a sum of Rupees thirty
lakhs towards the demand of arrears
by the appellant-company against
him.
(2) On such deposit being made, the
dispute between the parties
involved in the Transferred case
No. 42 of 1996 shall stand referred
to the Chief Electrical Inspector,
Calcutta who shall decide the same
within two months from the date the
dispute is referred to him.
(3) If the amount specified in
Direction No.1 is not deposited, it
shall be open to the appellant-
company to recover the arrears due
to it according to law.
(4) Pending further orders in the
matter, all the properties of the
respondent are attached herewith.
(5) Respondent No.1 shall pay the
costs of the appellant which are
estimated at Rupees fifty thousand
only."
The reasons for passing the aforesaid order are as
under :
This is a case of gross abuse of process of court. One
N.M. Banka had applied to CESC Limited which carries on
business of generation, supply and distribution of
electricity in Calcutta and its suburbs for a connection of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
electricity to premises No.11, U.N. Mukherjee Road,
Calcutta. After completion of inspection, the CESC agreed to
supply electricity to N.M. Banka by letter dated 5th
February, 1988 subject to compliance of usual conditions.
Some time later, it came to the knowledge of CESC that N.M.
Banka was a partner of the firm M/s Rajkumar Dyeing &
Printing Works which was carrying on business at the same
premises. The partnership firm was an existing registered
consumer from whom a very substantial sum of money was lying
due. Moreover, the partnership firm was found drawing
electricity far in excess of the sanctioned load of 50 H.P.
On coming to know the that N.M. Banka was a partner of
Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works, which was a defaulter in
payment of electricity charges, the CESC Limited by letter
dated 22 September, 1988 informed Banka that supply of
electricity to him has been kept in abeyance. Apart from the
huge liability of Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works, there
was also a technical difficulty in giving a separate
electric connection to Banka because t was not possible to
give two separate electric connections to one particular
premises. Existence of two services in the same premises
would be hazardous.
On 22nd July, 1988, writ petition was moved by Rajkumar
Dyeing & Works, the partnership firm and also Shri Banka,
the partner for a direction n the nature of mandamus
commanding CESC and their officers from disconnecting the
electricity line of the factory situated at No.11, U.N.
Mukherjee Road, Calcutta. A prayer was also made to refer
the disputed bills to the arbitrator as provided in the
Indian Electricity Act for adjudication. The allegation was
that CESC had issued an inflated bill for the month of June
1988 and were appellants if they failed to pay the said bill
bay 20th July, 1988. It was further prayed that if the
electricity line was disconnected, the factory will have to
be closed down and about 90 workers will have to be laid off
without any fault of the appellants. The writ petition was
moved ex-parte and a direction was given that the
electricity supply will not be disconnected ’till Wednesday
next’. On 28th July, 1988, the matter was once again heard
ex-parte and the interim order not to disconnect the supply
was further continued. The matter, thereafter, has come up
for hearing from time to time and the interim order has
been continued with occasional directions to deposit some
money. By this process, the writ petition was kept pending
for more than five years. The appellant who was a defaulter
when the writ petition was filed continued to get supply of
electricity by making occasional payments pursuant to the
direction of the Court. The Writ petitioner did not pay the
bills submitted in usual course, the arrears kept mounting
up and the CESC ultimately disconnected the line. By an
order dated 16th February, 1993, the Court directed the line
to be restored and the writ petition was directed to remain
heard in part.
It is difficult to understand how this writ petition
was allowed to linger on for five years. The Court did not
and could not possibly come to a finding on the disputed
questions of fact. According to CESC, the bills were
prepared properly. The appellants did not pay the bills. The
total amount of arrears due to the CESC had mounted up to
Rs. 67,40,948.10 after giving pursuant to the interim orders
passed by the Court from time to time. On behalf of the
CESC, very serious allegations have been made about theft of
electricity and overloading as a result of which the meter
was burnt out several times and non-payment of bills.
Section 24 of the Electricity Act gives the right to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
supplier to disconnect any electric supply line after
giving seven days’ notice, if a consumer neglects to pay the
charge for energy or any sum other than the charge for
energy due from him in respect of supply of energy. In case
of dispute or difference about the meter or the correctness
of the bill, the consumer may apply to the Electrical
Inspector. The Inspector in such a case shall estimate the
amount of energy supplied to the consumer. The supplier
shall not be at liberty to take off or remove any meter
until the dispute has been determined by the Electrical
Inspector. The writ petitioners did not avail of the
statutory remedy provided by sub-sections (4) and (6) of
Section 26 but approached the Court for interim relief and
by this process, managed to continue to get supply of
electricity even though there was a huge mounting default.
It is difficult to understand how the Court allowed the
question of these disputed bills to linger on for more than
five years without disposing of the case on merits. It was
also not proper for the Court to direct CESC to supply
electricity to a defaulter indefinitely by interim orders
passed from time to time. Specific statutory remedy provided
by the Indian Electricity Act to the consumer should not
have been allowed to be bypassed.
It has been contended on behalf of the consumer that
the second prayer in the writ petition was for referring the
matter for arbitration. We fail to see the sense of this
prayer. If the consumer was aggrieved by the bills, he
should have approached the Electric Inspector straight away.
When the consumer approached the Court, the Court should
have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy.
In any event, under the writ jurisdiction, the Court could
not have decided about the correctness or otherwise of the
bills. Serious allegations were made by the CESC about the
consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned load and
also of non-payment of valid bills. The allegation is also
that when the electricity supply to Rajkumar Dyeing &
Printing Works was stopped, a partner, Banka, wanted to get
a service line in his own name at the same place to run the
printing works. This was obviously a fraudulent move and the
CESC rightly refused to get the second line.