LexU.P.S.E.B. versus ATMA STEELS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A U.P.S.E.B. v. ATMA STEELS AND ORS. JANUARY 20, 1998 B [ B.N. KIRPAL AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] Indian Electricity Act, 1910 : S. 26-Eleclrical Inspector-Jurisdiction of Potential Transformer- C Fault in-,--Quantum of electricity consumed not correctly recorded in meter- Assessment made by Executive Engineer and bill issued to consumer accordingly-Suit by consumer before civil court-Connection restored on undertaking given to pay the amount demanded-Application u/s 26 filed before Chief Electrical Inspector-Allowed with the observation that though D the PT had blown off, amount demanded was npt reasonable. On appeal, appellate authority holding that PT could not ·be regarded as meter and therefore Electrical Inspector had no jurisdiction to entertain application u! s 26-High Court upholding the exercise ofjurisdiction by Electrical Inspector, but directing the appeal to be decided by technical hand nominated by Government other than Energy Secretary-Held, PT to be regarded as a E meter-Electrical Inspector had jurisdiction to exercise power u/s 26-High Court not justified in issuing direction as to who is to hear the appeal-It is for the Government co decide-Consumer cannot be absolved of the obligation to pay the amount demanded as undertaken by it before the civil court-Refund, if any, would be subject to the decision in appeal u/s 36. F G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 502-503 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.95 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 49 (M/S) of 1995. D.A. Dave, A.B. Rohtagi, Pradeep Misra, R.B. Misra and Kamlendra Misra for the Appellant. A.K. Singh and Vishal Dixit for the Respondent. H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 228 r U.P.S.E.B. v. ATMA STEELS 229 Special leave granted in both the matters. A J_ The respondent obtains electricity from the appellant. On I 0th December, 1992 a surprise check was made at the respondent's place and it was found that in the potential transformer (PT) a fuse had been blown off with the result that it was not supplying any electricity from primary cable to secondary B cable and as a consequences thereof, the quantum of electricity consumed )-• was not being correctly recorded in the meter. A notice was issued requiring the respondent to show cause as to why charges for less consumption be not charged for the period December 1991 to December 1992. In order to avoid the disconnection of the electricity, the respondent, with the permission of the authority, installed a new PT on the respondent undertaking to pay in future c for the supply given to it. On 29th December 1992 respondent gave a reply to the show cause notice and inter alia raised a dispute that the PT and the meter panelling were not working properly. After taking into consideration the reply, the Executive Engineer on 22nd January 1993 made an assessment of Rs. 57,77,891.38 and D "'( raised a bill. Thereupon the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, ...... " Ghaziabad challenging the said assessment. The Civil Judge passed an ex- parte ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant from recovering the j assessment amount and from disconnecting the supply. In the writtel'. statement filed by the appellant herein the demand of Rs. 57,77,891.38 was justified. E According to the appellant the respondent, while the suit was still pending, =! filed an application before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 20th February 1993 purporting to be under section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, I9!0 requiring the Inspector to exercise his jurisdiction under the said provision and to quash the aforesaid assessment which had been made. by the Executive Engineer. On 6th April, 1993 the respondent filed an application before the F '<. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, inter-alia, prayed that the electricity which had been -(· disconnected should be restored and the respondent be permitted to pay the aforesaid demand by instalments. Along with the application 12 post-dated cheques were. filed and the respondent gave an undertaking to the Court to -( the effect that if after the acceptance of the cheques and restoration of electricity any cheque is not encashed or it is dishonoured then ihe appellant G ~ herein will have the right to disconnect the electricity of the respondent .,._ without any notice. This application was made while reserving the right of the respondent to make a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.