WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. OF ORISSA LTD versus M/S BABA BAIJANATH ROLLER AND FLOUR MILL P. LTD.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 26-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 121 
WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. OF ORISSA LTD 
A 
& ORS. 
v. 
M/S BABA BAIJANATH ROLLER AND FLOUR MILL P. 
LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 2014) 
B 
MARCH 26, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) 
Electricity Act, 1910: s.26 - Applicability of, in case of 
tampering of meter- Held: s.26 is applicable only when there 
is any difference or a dispute in connection with correctness 
of a meter - In that case, upon being applied by either party, 
c 
the matter has to be decided by an Electrical Inspector and if D 
in the opinion of the Inspector the meter is found to be 
defective, the Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy 
supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained 
in the supply during such time not exceeding six months - But 
if there is a question of fraud in tampering with the meter, in 
E 
that case there is no question of applicability of s. 26 of the 
Act - In the instant case, the respondent never asked or 
applied for checking of the meter by the Electrical Inspector 
on the ground of defective meter - Therefore, the ingredients 
of s.26(6) were not followed by the respondent to meet the 
F 
necessity of checking the meter in question in accordance 
with the said provision - The inspection was made in the 
presence of the representative of the respondent who was a 
Manager of the said company and in his presence the meter 
was checked up and was found to be tampered with - Electricity 
G 
supply company was right in raising penal charges and penal 
bill on the respondent on the ground of unauthorised 
consumption by way of tampering the metering equipment. 
The appellant conducted inspection at the premises 
121 
H 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A of the respondent and noted meter tampering and 
accordingly raised bill imposing penal charges and 
issued notice of disconnection in default of payment of 
penal charges. The respondent did not make payment 
and the electricity supply was disconnected. Aggrieved, 
B the respondent filed a writ petition. The High Court held 
that the representation filed by the respondent was never 
considered before the imposition of penalty, far less 
giving an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the High 
Court held that this action of the appellant was in clear 
c violation of the principles of natural justice and set aside 
the penalty charges. The inspection report was also 
quashed on the ground that such inspection was never 
done in the presence of the authorised persons of the 
respondent. In these circumstances, the High Court 
0 further directed the appellant to refund the amount so 
paid within three months. Hence the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 is 
E relevant only when there is any difference or a dispute 
in connection with correctness of a meter. In that case 
the matter shall be decided, upon being applied by either 
party, by an Electrical Inspector and in the opinion of the 
Inspector if it is found that the meter is defective, the 
F Inspector has to estimate the amount of energy supplied 
to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the 
supply during such time not exceeding six months but if 
there is a question of fraud in tampering with the meter, 
in that case there is no question of applicability of Section 
G 26 of the said Act. In the instant case, the respondent 
never asked or applied for checking of the meter by the 
Electrical Inspector on the ground of defective meter. 
Therefore, the ingredients of Section 26(6) were not 
followed by the respondent to meet the necessity of 
checking the meter in question in accordance wlth the 
H 
WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. OF ORISSA LTD. v. BABA BAIJANATH 123 
ROLLER & FLOUR MILL P. LTD. 
said provision. [Para 11] [136-D-H] 
2. The inspection was made in the presence of the 
representative of the respondent who was a Manager of 
the said company and in his presence the meter was 
checked up and was found to be tampered with. The plea 
A 
B 
c 
of duress or coercion in signing the inspection report 
was raised by the respondent but in reality no allegation 
was made by the respondent before an appropriate 
authority excepting such bald allegations were made 
before the writ court without any basis or pvidence. 
Therefore that fact has no bearing in deciding this matter. 
The said fact cannot be ignored while dealing with the 
matter concerning tampering

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