TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. AND ORS. versus M/S SRI RAMA KRISHNA RICE MILL

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 20-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-t 
"'~ 
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS SRI RAMA KRISHNA RICE MILL 
-
FEBRUARY 20, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
_j 
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Terms and Conditions of Supply of 
Electrical Energy-Clause 39.9 sub clause (1) to (3)-Pilferage of energy by 
consumer-Final Order of assessment made on bais of reports of departmental c 
officer without granting opportunity to consumer-Opportunity to cross-examine 
departmental officer-Grant of-Held: Right of cross examination is not 
inbuilt-Terms and conditions of supply do not contemplate recording oral or 
documentary evidence-However provides for reasonable opportunity which 
depends on factual situation-Consumer has to make out a case for cross-
examination which would be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority. D 
1 
Appellant no. I-Corporation successor company of erstwhile A.P. 
State Electricity Board inspected business premises of respondent and 
made provisional assessment alleging pilferage of energy and raised a 
demand. Thereafter, appellant issued notice to respondent proposing to 
charge on final assessment. Respondent filed its objections and E 
subsequently final order of assessment was passed confirming the amount 
stated in the notice. Respondent filed an appeal under the Terms and 
Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of State Electricity Board 
praying for grant of opportunity to cross-examine certain officials of the 
~· 
Corporation on basis of whose statements final assessment was made but F 
the same was refused. Respondent filed writ petition which was allowed 
holding that if the authorities relied on statement or report pointing out 
the act of pilferage petitioner would be entitled to call such person for 
cross-examination. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
G 
·~ 
HELD: 1.1. ·The parameters of the ·principles of natural justice 
cannot be covered by any straight-jacket formula. It would vary depending 
upon the circumstances involved. [376-F) 
371 
H 
A 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
1.2. Under Clause 39.9.:Z of Terms and Conditions of Supply it cannot 
be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the statement 
of departmental officer i!> pressed into service for the purpose of 
adjudication, a right of cross examination is in built. The Terms and 
Conditions of Supply did no1t contemplate anything like recording oral or 
B documentary evidence in the way as is normally done in the Courts of law. 
But Clause 39.9.2 itself provides for a reasonable opportunity being 
granted. What would be a re:~sonable opportunity would also depend upon 
the fact situation. (377-E; 3"'6-G) 
Advanced Law lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar 3rd Edition, Vol.4 pages 
C 3959 and 3968, referred to. 
1.3. In order to establish that cross-examination is necessary, the 
consumer has to make out a case for the same. Merely stating that the 
statement of an officer is being utilized for the purpose of adjudication 
would not be sufficient in all cases. If an application is made requesting 
D for grant of an opportunity 'to cross examine any official, the same has to 
be considered by the adjudicating authority who would have to either 
grant the request or pass a reasoned order if he chooses to reject the 
application. In that event an adjudication being concluded, it shall be 
certainly open to the consumer to establish before the appellate authority 
E as to how he has been prejudiced by the refusal to grant opportunity to 
cross-examine any official. Where the reliance is only on accounts prepared 
by a person, cross examination is not necessary. But where it is based on 
reports alleging tampering or pilferage, the fact situation may be different. 
Before asking for cross examination the consumer may be granted an 
opportunity to look into the documents on which the adjudication is 
F 
proposed. In that event, he will be in a position to know as to the author 
of which statement is neces!1ary to be cross-examined. The applications 
for cross-examination are not to be filed in routine manner and equally 
also not to be disposed of by adjudicator in casual or routine manner. 
There has to be application of mind by him. (377-G, H; 378-A-C) 
G 
1.4. In the instant case without even granting an opportunity to the 
respondent, the final order of assessment was passed. Merely taking note 
of the objection filed cannot be said to be compliance of the pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.