LexPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus ASHWANI KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 7 S.C.R. 1158 PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. ASHWANI KU~AR (Civil Appeal No. 3505 of 2007) JULY 8, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) Electricity Supply Regulations - Clubbing of electricity connections in one premises - Inspection report with regard C to complainant's premises - Two connections in different names operating therein with sanctioned load of 52.49 KW and 56. 76 KW, thus, the two connections liable to be clubbed - Demand raised from consumers - Challenge to - State Commission as also National Commission set aside the 0 demand raised holding that two distinct persons owned distinct properties and were ·having independent electric connections, thus could not be termed as same premises - On appeal held: Reasons were not recorded as regard the correctness of inspection report - Ambiguity in the protest raised by consumers to inspection report - Documents produced by E consumers were prior to date of inspection - Thus, matter remanded to the Competent Authority, Electricity Board to determine and record findings afresh as to whether it was a case of clubbing or not - Electricity Supply Act, 1948 - Circular CC No. 4 of 1997 dated 08.01.97. F The officers of the Electrlclty Board conducted Inspection of the premises of the respondent. As per the Inspection report In the said premises, two different connections were operating with a sanctioned load of 52.49 KW In the name of KO and 56.79 KW In the name G of JR, thus the connections were liable to be clubbed. The officers raised a demand of Rs. 3,28,2161- and Rs. 4,56,0251· from the said consumers. The consumers flled a complaint before the District Forum and It dismissed the same. The State Consumer District Redressal . H 1158 PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 1159 ASHWANI KUMAR Commission allowed the appeals. /It held that they were A two distinct persons, owning disti~ct properties and were having independent electric conn~ctions and therefore, the demand raised was not justified. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upheld the order. Hence the appeals. B Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of the Electricity Supply Regulations and the Circular CC No. 4 of 1997 dated 8.1.1997 makes it apparent that the <1im of the Electricity c Board is to provide single connection in the premises. It is the obligatiQn of the consumer to get the connections clubbed where-·more than one connection exists in the same premises. This policy is, primarily, meant to encourage single connection as we·ll as consumers to opt 0 for clubbing of their loads and also to facilitate a smooth transmission. Besides this, the most important aspect is the mischief that these provisions ought to suppress. A consumer who gets two meters installed in his premises and In that garb receives bulk supply Instead of medium E supply clearly makes an attempt to avoid payment of higher tariff. It cannot be disputed that a consumer of a medium supply Is subjected to a lower tariff than the one receiving bulk supply. Therefore, the intention Is to avoid revenue loss to the Board by circulating the prescribed procedure. These regulations and circulars, thus, cannot F be Interpreted so as to defeat the very object of suppressing such. a mischief In the consumption of electricity. Therefore, If the Electricity Board finds that such mischief Is being played, there is nothing in law preventing the Board from treating It as a clubbed G 'connection and impose such tariff and penalty as Is permissible In accordance with law. No consumer can be permitted to defeat the spirit of the regulations and take undue advantage of receiving electric supply through different meters In the same premises and with an H 1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A intention to defraud the Electricity Board of its genuine dues for supply of electricity. [Para 5] [1168-B-G] 1.2. The documents noticed by the State Commission, show that the consumer had advanced the 8 argument of separate properties, separate ownership and separate connections. However, there is no reason recorded as to why the evidence of the Department i.e. the inspection report is incorrect and cannot be relied upon. There is ambiguity. The District Forum, white relying upon the report, had rejected the complaint which C was reversed by the State Forum. These are the findings of facts and th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.