LexJ.M.D. ALLOYS LTD. versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A J.M.D. ALLOYS LTD. v. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. MARCH 6, 2003 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Electricity laws: C Electricity Act, 19 I 0: Section 26(6)-Dispute with regard to tampering of seal of CT/PT uni/- Scope and ambit of-Held: Such dispute is outside the ambit of section 26(6) and Electrical Inspector has no jurisdiction to try such cases-Electrical D Inspector can only decide whether the meter is correct and is recording the reading accurately. Sections 39 and 44-Case of theft of ene;·gy-Trial-Object and purpose of-Held: Is to punish and sentence the person who is alleged to have committed the offence-Trial of accused in criminal case has no bearing on E assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed. Bihar State Electricity Tariff: Clause 16.9-Detection of unauthorized load-Counting the period of F dishonest abstraction of energy as I 80 days when there is no evidence to establish the period-Justification of-Held: Assessment justified Clause 16.9 and 16. 10.3-Dishonest abstraction-Assessment of fael charge at thrice the rate per unit-Justification of-Held: Clause 16. 10.3 is a separate clause which deals with fuel surcharge and it nowhere lays down G that this additional surcharge will be levied at thrice the rate per unit of the Tariff, thus levy of fuel surcharge at thrice the rate per unit not justified. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Scope of-Order of Chief Engineer-Writ petition against H 690 -- I ~,, --- J.M.D. ALLOYS LTD. v. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 69 J the order--He/d: High Court not hearing an appeal against the decision of A Chief Engineer-Hence scope of inquiry is limited-Judicial review. Petitioner-factory has a high tension industrial connection of electricity for running induction furnaces. Electricity Board inspected the petitioner's factory premises and found the seal fixed on CT/PT box tampered. FIR was lodged. Thereafter, Electricity Board issued a bill. Petitioner challenged the B bill. As directed by High Court, Electricity Board issued a notice. After giving an opportunity to the petitioners, Chief Engineer passed an order holding that Clause 16.9 (b) and (c) of Tariff is attracted and the petitioner is liable to pay compensatory bill in terms of the Tariff and also issued a fresh bill. Petitioner challenged the bill. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Petitioner filed a C letters patent appeal. Division Bench partly allowed the same holding that the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges in accordance with clause 16.9 oi the Tariff. However, with regard to fuel surcharge it held that the same cannot be levied at thrice the rate in accordance with Clause 16.9 of the Tariff. Hence the present appeals. Petitioner-factory contended that t~ey had not tampered with 1the seal of CT/PT unit since on inspection no irregularity had been found; that there D was no material or evidence to show that the petitioner interfered with the meter which may have the effect of showing lesser consumption of energy or there was presence of artificial means which would have rendered abstraction E of electrical energy possible, thus the provisions of Clause 16.9 of the Tariff could not be made applicable and the electricity bill issued to the petitioner is incorrect; that the faulty recording of the meter has to be judged from the standpoint of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the matter should have been referred to Electrical Inspector; that after registration of a criminal case, case was investigated and a final report was submitted, which was F accepted by the Magistrate and as a result of this order, the petitioner stands exonerated from the charge of theft of electricity; that there is no justification for counting the period of dishonest abstraction of energy as 180 days (six months); and that the findings recorded by the Chief Engineer are wholly incorrect as instead of basing his order on the actual production of steel, he G has gone by the capacity of the furnaces. Respondent-Electricity Board contended that Section 26(6) of the Act has no application to a case where the seal fixed on CT/PT terminal box had been tampered with and the recording of consumption by the meter had been effected by recourse to artificial means; that the surcharge being part of the H 692 SUPREME COURT R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.