Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 4 (CAL)

Premier Engineering Works v. C. E. S. C. Limited

2001-01-03

BARIN GHOSH

body2001
Judgment 1. The conditions of supply of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited has been recently amended. Clause 29(a) of the Amended Conditions of Supply authorizes the Corporation to enter the premises of the consumer if there is reason to believe and not mere suspicion that the consumer has been or is guilty of pilferage of electricity. The reason to believe would tic converted into conviction upon detection of the means of pilferage and the same would be translated by the act of disconnection without notice. If such disconnection is effected, the Corporation is obliged to lodge a F.I.R. with the local Police Station within 24 hours from such disconnection. Clause 29(b) of the Amended Conditions of Supply provides that if such disconnection is effected, the supply to such consummer shall remain disconnected till such time, the means of pilferage are removed to the entire satisfaction of the licensee and the amount assessed for such pilferage along with the security deposit, if required and the disconnection and reconnect ion charges are deposited by the consumer. This clause, therefore, makes it abundantly clear that even if a consumer is guilty of pilferage of electricity, he may get supply of electricity after disconnection provided- the means of pilferage have been removed and the amount payable on account of pilfered electricity as assessed along with the additional security deposit, if any, is deposited. Clause 29(c) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply provides that the Officer authorized by the Corporation shall at the earliest opportunity, issue a notice to the consumer giving reasons for disconnection and advising the consumer to make his written representation, if any within the period specified in the notice. The reason for disconnection, if such disconnection has been effected without notice upon entering the premises of the consumer on the belief that the consumer has been or is guilty of pilferage of electricity, would be that there has been pilferage of electricity. But, then, that would be of no use until and unless the consumer is told the means of pilferage. Therefore, while the notice is to be issued, in that not only it should be mentioned that the disconnection has been effected for the consumer had been guilty of pilferage of electricity but he must also be informed the means of pilferage. Therefore, while the notice is to be issued, in that not only it should be mentioned that the disconnection has been effected for the consumer had been guilty of pilferage of electricity but he must also be informed the means of pilferage. Once that is done the consumer will be in a position to make an effective representation against such disconnection. In that the consumer must deny the existence of the alleged means of pilferage. Unless that is done mere denial of pilferage will not be of any countenance. If such an effective representation is made and if no representation is made, upon expiry of the notice period, the matter must be adjudicated upon as provided for in Clause 29(d) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply the adjudication there has to be a clear finding that there has been pilferage of electricity and that such pilferage was made through the means mentioned in the notice. Once such 3n adjudication is made, the assessment of pilfered electricity would be made under Clause 29(d) on the parameters mentioned ill Clause 29(e) and 29(f) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply. The adjudication and the assessment normally should be made as quickly as possible but such adjudication may be delayed. Will the consumer be without electricity until such time the adjudication is made? If the consumer denies that there was no pilferage and if during the course of adjudication it is held that there was no pilferage, will the consumer be without electricity for the period from the date of disconnection until the adjudication merely because the Officer authorized by the Corporation had reason to believe that the consumer has been or is guilty of pilferage of electricity? I do not think so. 2. Till such time the adjudication is made there would only be conviction of the Corporation alone. There cannot be any conclusion that the consumer has been or is guilty of pilferage of electricity until such adjudication is made. If the consumer denies the existence of the alleged means of pilferage as also the allegation of pilferage it cannot b€ concluded that the consumer had been guilty of pilferage of electricity until such time the matter is adjudicated upon. Once that is adjudicated, assessment would be made op the parameters mentioned in Clause 29(e) and 29(f) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply. Once that is adjudicated, assessment would be made op the parameters mentioned in Clause 29(e) and 29(f) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply. As aforesaid the adjudication may be delayed. There is possibility that at the adjudication it may be held that in fact there was no pilferage at all. In order to take care of that situation I think it would be proper on the part of the Corporation to State in the notice as to what it claims to be the value of the pilfered electricity to be calculated on the basis of the parameters mentioned in Clause 29(e) and 29(f) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply. If such an intimation is given, the consumer may agree to the removal of the alleged means of pilferage as pointed out in the notice in such manner as may be agreed and deposit the amount claimed without prejudice to his contention that there was no pilferage at all and obtain restoration of supply. 3. I, therefore, feel that in the notice to be issued in terms of Clause 29(c) of the said Amended Conditions of Supply, the Corporation is required to inform the consumer the alleged means of pilferage and also to indicate the value of electricity said to have been pilfered in order to enable the consumer in question to take effective step upon receipt of such notice. 4. This has not been done in the instant case. I, therefore, keep this matter pending for seven days and in the meantime direct the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to intimate the consumer the means of pilferage and to notify the claim on account of the alleged pilferage so as to enable the consumer to make a proper representation against the same and thereupon to take appropriate steps for restoration of electricity until the matter is adjudicated upon. Let xeroxed plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Counsels for the parties on their usual undertaking. S.K.G.