Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD, JABALPUR & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HARSH WOOD PRODUCTS & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 522 JT 1996 (5) 434
1996 SCALE (4)485
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the
judgment and order dated March 12, 1993 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior
Bench in M.P. No.1484/91. The admitted position is that on
August 21, 1991, the appellants’ staff inspected the
electrical installation of the respondents connected by the
appellant-Board. In the proceedings recorded after the said
inspection, the facts noted are as under:
"During the course of inspection,
Shri Dilip was present as the
representative of M/s. Harsh Wood
Products, Banmore, and found the
following irregularities.
Connection No.1156 [2556] -
1- No seal found on Meter terminal
cover.
2- Body seals of the meter, bearing
No.490812 [Right side] and 01443
[Left Side] found tematampered.
3- The seals on Meter Box, bearing
No.38556/SE Morena, C-10/MPEB
Gwalior, found OK.
Connection No.1158 [2824]
1] No seal found with Meter
terminal cover.
2] Meter Body seals, bearing
No.49817 [Right Side] & 013361
[Left Side] found broken and
Tampered.
3] Seal on meter box bearing
No.33434/SE Morena C-10/MPEB
Gwalior found OK.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
In both the above connections,
the difference was noticed, in
serial No. and the location of the
seals provided on Meter Body. The
serial No. and the location of the
meter body seals, as found in the
inspection carried out on dated
16.3.91, are found different in the
checking carried out on dated
22.8.91. The difference noticed in
serial No. & location in checking
is as hereunder:-
Connection Connection
No.2556 No.2824
16.3.91 Right Side 490817 013343
Seal fixed Left Side 490812 013361
28.8.91
Report as Right Side 490812 49817
Left Side 013343 013361
Meter No. 0530489 545768
This panchnama has been
prepared in view of Meter Body
seals found Tempered and Meter
terminal seals found missing so as
to interfere and control the energy
consumption as per his own desire.
Maintaining "Status Quo" of
the tempered and broken body seals,
of Meter of Both the above
connection, New Seals are fixed on
the meter box bearing No.M1919
MPEB/MT on Connection No.2556 and
NoM 1920 MPEB/MT on connection
No.2824. The old seals provided on
the meter box are in custody with
the Executive Engineer [O&M]
Morena.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
22.8.91 22.8.91 22.8.91
EE [O&M] S.E [Testing] A.E. [DIW]
Morena Gwalior Morena
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
22.8.91 22.8.91 22.8.91
A.E.132 KV A.E. [Testing]Dilip
S/s Morena [Represen-
Banmore tative of
Consumer]".
In the said proceedings, one Mr. Dilip had represented
the respondent-Industry and he was also the signatory to the
proceedings. Thereafter, notice was issued to the
respondents on August 26, 1991 informing that the meter body
seals were tempered and damaged with seal wire. The seals of
the meter terminal block were found missing which would
indicate that the function of the meter was disturbed to
reduce the consumption of electrical energy. Therefore, the
respondent-Industry was directed to pay the difference of
the assessed amount said to be in a sum of Rs.6,51,256.61 at
the earliest. It was also pointed out that bill for the
further past years was being examined and the decision would
be taken and intimated in due course. In furtherance
thereof, the respondent-Industry submitted the explanation
to the show cause on August 29, 1991 wherein he requested
that on humanitarian grounds, viz , "the supply of the
installation will please be restored immediately and we give
the undertaking that if any balance amount becomes due for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
payment on account of vigilance checking, the same will be
deposited immediately on providing the bills for such
amount". The reply was also given by Mr. Dilip who had
participated during inspection.
Upon these facts, the question emerges: whether the
High Court would be justified in interfering with the order
directing them to pay the difference of the amount. The High
Court in the impugned judgment has held that the respondent
has a right of hearing before the authority subject it to
payment of the amount which is alleged to be due towards the
theft of electricity as required under Section 31 [e] of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Since that opportunity was not
given, it violated Articles 20 [1] and 21 of the
Constitution and, therefore, the order was void.
Accordingly, it directed the appellant-Board to restore
within 24 hours the service connection No.2556/1156 of the
Industry. It is also stated with respect to the claim of the
Board against electricity stolen that it would be open to
the appellant to raise legal and appropriate demand in a
legal and lawful manner. Accordingly, the demand was
quashed.
The question, therefore, is: whether the view of the
High Court is sustainable in law. It would be seen that
Section 49 read with Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply)
Act, 1948 gives power to the appellant-Board to determine
and also to revise tariff from time to time. Admittedly, in
exercise of the power the tariff has been determined and the
principles governing the supply of electricity have been
enumerated. Clause 31 [e] is relevant in this behalf. It
provides as under:
"[e] Where any consumer is
detected in the commission of any
malpractice with reference to his
use of electrical energy including
authorised alternations to
installations, unauthorised
extension and use of devices to
commit theft of electrical energy
the Board may, without prejudice to
its other rights, cause the
consumer’s supply to be forthwith
disconnected. The supply may be
restored in the discretion of the
Division Engineer of the Board if
the consumer forthwith compensates
the Board and pays all dues as per
bill and takes such other actions
as he may be directed by the
Divisional Engineer of the Board to
take in this connection".
A reading thereof clearly indicates that the appellant-
Board,
malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy
including authorised alternations to installations,
unauthorised extension and use of devices to commit theft of
electrical energy, may, without prejudice to its other
rights, disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and
may call upon the consumer to make payment for compensation
of the unauthorised use of electricity which is now stated
to be a theft of electricity. It is not in dispute that an
FIR had already been lodged for theft of electrical energy.
It is seen that the proceedings have been drawn in the
presence of the representative of the respondent-Industry
and the meters were found to have been tempered with. In
furtherance thereof, a prima facie conclusion of pilferage
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
has been reached that the meters were tempered with and
respondents were called upon to pay the difference of the
rate for electricity said to have been consumed during the
stated period of the detection. It would appear that the
said assessment was based upon the previous consumption. It
is seen that since the proceedings are pending, it would not
be desirable to record any finding in this behalf.
The learned counsel for the respondent placed strong
reliance on Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
which contemplates seven days’ notice before disconnection.
Section 24 does not apply to demand on detection of
pilferage. It would apply to a case of regular supply made
and prior demand for payment of electricity charges with a
notice of seven days to be made and for failure to pay
within the given time, after expiry of seven days, the
appellant as a licensee would get the right to disconnect
the supply of electrical energy. It would thus be seen that
disconnection will be in the course of regular supply of
electricity for non-payment of the usual bills but not to
any case demand after detection of pilferage.
The only question is: whether the consumer is entitled
to hearing before disconnection? In view of the conditions
to which the respondents had agreed at the time of
installation and also the prima facie conclusion reached by
the authorities, it was not necessary to give further
hearing to the respondents. The action taken by the
appellant is not violative of Articles 20 [1], 14 of the
Constitution and principles of natural justice.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.