Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 284 (CAL)

CHEN KUAM TAIN v. CESC LTD.

2002-04-29

SEN GUPTA

body2002
SEN GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner's line was disconnected by the CESC on suspected case of pilferage as the officials of the CESC found on the date of detection that the original seals affixed on the body of the meter were replaced by spurious seals. The writ petitioner seriously challenged the aforesaid action and contended that there could not be any case of tampering of seals for using spurious seals by the petitioner. Pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, a certain amount has been paid and the line has been restored and the petitioner has been enjoying the electric connection since then. ( 2 ) SINCE the petitioner challenged the factual case of the CESC that the seals were replaced by spurious ones, therefore at the ad interim stage Justice Barin Ghosh was pleased to pass an order appointing a Special Officer for examination and comparison of the seals of the meter which are in dispute, with those of the meters which are not in dispute. The Special Officer submitted report before this court and having considered the report it was of the view that it was not possible for the court to come to the conclusion upon physical comparison whether the seal removed from the disconnected meter was spurious or not. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order, the Head of the Department, Jadavpur University, had submitted a report and it would be appropriate to reproduce the text of the report as hereunder :" (1) By an order dated 22/05/2001 and subsequently dated 29/06/2001 the Hon'ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta has identified me as the authority to ascertain upon examination/test the status of the seal attached to the electric meter. (2) After necessary formalities with Jadavpur University authority M/s Chem Kuam Tain deposited testing fee for the purpose of investigation on 3/09/2001. (3) Faculty members chosen for the purpose of investigation carefully inspected the seals and through inspection /examination came to conclusion that the seals of the meter have been tampered and there is every possibility of pilferage. " ( 4 ) MR. Kar submits that he will argue in this writ petition on the question of pilferage as well as the action of the CESC of disconnection of supply line. He contends that the report of the aforesaid department has not been submitted in terms of my order dated 22/05/2001. " ( 4 ) MR. Kar submits that he will argue in this writ petition on the question of pilferage as well as the action of the CESC of disconnection of supply line. He contends that the report of the aforesaid department has not been submitted in terms of my order dated 22/05/2001. He contends further that I specifically directed to examine as to whether the seals were spurious or not and in fact having drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the documents of the affidavit-in-opposition that the case of the CESC is that the spurious seals were used to replace the original and genuine seals whereas the report of the aforesaid department speaks of the tampering of the seals. His contention is that the meaning of the word "spurious" is absolutely different from that of the meaning of the word "tampering". In case of spurious seals the seals will be altogether replaced and the new seal will be used, but in case of tampering, the original seals may not be replaced and by some method or other configuration of the original seals may be disfigured or disturbed. In support of his contention he has shown me that Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edn. ( 5 ) MR. Bose, appearing for the CESC, contends otherwise. He says that the word "tampering" is a generic one and it includes the word "spurious" as well. There cannot be distinction between the two words in the real sense. Mr. Kar further submits that the aforesaid department even has not compared the two seals. So this report cannot be accepted as a basis for adjudication on the question of pilferage. Mr. Bose further contends otherwise and submits that if the report is read carefully it will appear that both the meters were examined and inspected properly. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the respective contentions of the learned counsel, it appears to me that the two questions have fallen for consideration- (i) Whether the aforesaid department has, in terms of my order, examined and reported the matter or not? (ii) whether the meaning of the word "spurious" is different from that of the word "tampering" or not? ( 6 ) HAVING heard the respective contentions of the learned counsel, it appears to me that the two questions have fallen for consideration- (i) Whether the aforesaid department has, in terms of my order, examined and reported the matter or not? (ii) whether the meaning of the word "spurious" is different from that of the word "tampering" or not? ( 7 ) IN my order dated 22/05/2001, I directed the aforesaid department to examine the two seals and to come to findings as to whether the seals collected from the disconnected meters are spurious or not. From the report I find that the department concerned has inspected and examined thoroughly both the seals. This examination and inspection include both visual as well as chemical. However, whether it has been chemically examined or not has not been spelt out. But the department has come to the conclusion that the seals of the meters have been tampered and there is possibility of pilferage. Of course the department was not asked to come to the conclusion as to whether there is any pilferage or not. The scope of the enquiry was to find out as to whether the seals were spurious or not. Therefore, the findings of the department that there has been pilferage is not accepted by this court. This is beyond the scope of my order or reference. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Kar that the aforesaid department has not examined the seals in terms of my order. ( 8 ) THE next question comes as to whether the meaning of the word "spurious" is different from the meaning of the word "tampering" or not. Mr. Kar has drawn my attention to the meaning of the word "spurious" which I appropriately quote here to the extent it is relevant for the purpose. "spurious" means not genuine or authentic, forged or fictitious. Similarly I also quote the meaning of the word "tampering" from the aforesaid book to the extent it is relevant in this case. "tampering" means to meddle or interfere with so as to misuse, alter. ( 9 ) IT is true in my order I have asked to find out whether the seals are spurious or not meaning thereby to find out whether the original seals were there or not, whether by means of replacement or by means of other machinations. "tampering" means to meddle or interfere with so as to misuse, alter. ( 9 ) IT is true in my order I have asked to find out whether the seals are spurious or not meaning thereby to find out whether the original seals were there or not, whether by means of replacement or by means of other machinations. the word "tampering" is, in my view, a generic term and it includes the cases of spurious as well. In case of "spurious" there may be total replacement of the original and genuine seals and the whole idea of the action of the CESC is to find out whether there was any replacement of the genuine seals or not. Therefore, I find some substance in Mr. Bose's contention that the word "tampering" includes spurious as well. Therefore, I have no hesitation to accept the report of the aforesaid department to the extent of finding of the meter being tampered. ( 10 ) UNDER such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition by passing the following order. ( 11 ) THE petitioner would be entitled to make a representation to the authorised officer within a fortnight from date and the said officer shall decide the matter in accordance with law as provided under the Conditions of Supply, namely clause 29 (c) and (d ). The petitioner would be entitled to produce all documents before him at the time of assessment and quantification of the unmetered consumption. I make it clear that as because there is replacement of the original meters with the ingenuine one, it may not be presumed that there must be bypassing of electric energy. This has to be found out upon evidence whether indeed or in reality there was bypassing of registration of the electric energy by the meters and the petitioner has consumed electric energy which was not registered in the meter. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to produce all documents and registers showing the consumption of electric energy used during the period when according to the CESC the petitioner has pilfered the electric energy. The authorised officer shall pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to produce all documents and registers showing the consumption of electric energy used during the period when according to the CESC the petitioner has pilfered the electric energy. The authorised officer shall pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner. In the event the petitioner does not make any report within the time as above, then the bills which have been raised on account of unmetered consumption shall be conclusive and binding and the petitioner will have to pay the balance amount in that case within one month from date. ( 12 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of. ( 13 ) PARTIES shall act on xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings. Order accordingly.