Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 147 (PAT)

Rishi Cement Company Ltd. v. B. S. E. Board

2000-01-27

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ application, petitioner inter-alia prayed for declaration that disconnection of petitioners electrical connection on 22.7.99 by the officials of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board is illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with law as there is no dues against the petitioner, regarding any monthly energy bill and no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner before such disconnection including the notice u/s 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 . A further prayer has been made for quashing the supplementary bill as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application raised by the respondent/Board under Clause 16.9 of the Boards 1993 tariff. 2. Petitioners case is that, in the year 1989 and 1991 two agreements were entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent-Board for the supply of electrical energy under the High Tension line. In 1990 Electrical Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh accorded permission to the petitioner for installation of D.G. Set of 180 K.V.A. and accordingly petitioner installed such D.G. Set in its plant in the year 1990. It is contended that petitioner has been making payment of monthly energy bills regularly upto June, 1999 and there is no dues against the petitioners company on account of monthly energy bills. On 22.7.99 at about 1.30 P.M. petitioner found that electric supply to its industry stopped working, whereas other industries around the petitioners factory were getting electric supply. Petitioner wrote letter dated 23.7.99 to the Assistant Electric Engineer informing him stopage of supply of electricity to its premises. In reply to the petitioners letter Assistant Electrical Engineer informed the petitioner that he alongwith Junior Electrical Engineer Ranchi has disconnected the petitioners line as per the order of Electrical Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh. Petitioner however, stated that premises of the petitioner was inspected by a team of the officials of the respondent-Board on 13.7.99 and a copy of this report was handed over to the representative of the petitioner. It is alleged that as per the said inspection nothing adverse was found in the petitioners premises and also no tempering etc. was found and the seals were found intact. On 17.7.99 a team of respondent-Board visited the premises of the petitioner and tested the High Tension Meter installed in the premises and recorded certain findings. A copy of the testing report dated 17.7.99 is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. was found and the seals were found intact. On 17.7.99 a team of respondent-Board visited the premises of the petitioner and tested the High Tension Meter installed in the premises and recorded certain findings. A copy of the testing report dated 17.7.99 is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. Subsequently, F.I.R. was lodged on 21.7.99 before the officer Incharge Kuju, being Mandu P.S. case no.172/99 registered u/s 379 I.P.C. and 39/40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 , against one Ram Pravesh Agarwal as the Managing Director of the petitioners company and Chandragupta Sahay as General Manager of the company Petitioner, thereafter received supplementary bill dated 24.7.99 on account of alleged pilferage of energy by the petitioner in terms of Clause 16.9 of the Boards tariff 1993 four Rs. 89,87,759/-. Petitioner therefore stated that disconnection of petitioners electrical connection by the officials of the Board is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. As a result of which petitioner has been adversely affected and there is huge loss to the petitioner including the financial loss and loss of business and good-will. 3. I have heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned council appearing for the respondent- Board. 4. Mr. Mahto, learned senior counsel in course of his argument raised two points, firstly action of the respondents in disconnecting supply of electricity on the alleged finding of theft/pilferage of electricity by the inspecting team is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and violative of principles of natural justice and secondly raising of supplementary bills and demand of additional amount on the basis of the alleged theft of electricity without giving notice to show-cause and without hearing the petitioner is bad in law. I have answered these two points in the judgment delivered today in CWJC No.223/2000 (Usha Beltron Ltd & Anr. vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors; 2000(2) PLJR 836 ). 5. In my opinion, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the aforesaid case. Accordingly, I hold that when theft of electrical energy is found by the officials of the Board then disconnection of supply of electricity is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice do not apply. 5. In my opinion, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the aforesaid case. Accordingly, I hold that when theft of electrical energy is found by the officials of the Board then disconnection of supply of electricity is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice do not apply. However, raising of supplementary bills by the respondent-Board on the basis of alleged theft/pilferage without giving notice to show-cause and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is unjustified. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned bill is quashed giving opportunity to the respondents to raise fresh bill after giving show-cause notice and liberty of hearing to the petitioner. 6. In the meantime, supply of electrical energy in the premises of the petitioner shall be restored subject to the condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) in cash and a bank guarantee for Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rs.Thirty-five lakhs) from a Nationalised Bank. The amount so diposited shall be adjusted against the subsequent bills that may be raised by the respondent Board.