Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1412 (PNJ)

Kikkar Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board

2003-10-14

G.S.SINGHVI, S.S.SARON

body2003
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the letter dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P2) issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board (Board, for short) Ludhiana (respondent No. 3), the order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P3) passed by the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board and the order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as also the intimation/bill Annexure P6 informing the petitioner of the decision of his case by the Dispute Settlement Authority in terms of which the petitioner has been charged an amount of Rs. 1,96,727/- on the allegations that Meter glass of his electric meter was found tampered and thus the petitioner has been suppressing his consumption. 2. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the Board and earlier had sanctioned load of 33.724KWs. The electric meter in respect of his electricity connection was changed on 22.10.1983 vide MCO (Meter Change Order) dated 10.10.1983 and the load was extended to 46.406KWs. The said meter that was installed on 22.10.1983, it is stated, was not a fresh meter but was an Old T&P (Tools and Plants) meter. In support of this, the petitioner has placed on record the extract of spot memo dated 22.10.1983 (Annexure P1). The electric load was again extended from 44.406 KWs to 78.352 KWs. However, the meter was not changed despite increase in the load. On 1.2.2001, the meter was changed in order to install an electronic meter. The meter that was removed was sealed and sent to M.E. Laboratory for testing which was tested on 19.2.2001. It was reported that the meter glass was tampered. The petitioner was accordingly served with a penalty letter dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P2) informing him that his connection was checked on 19.2.2001 by the Enforcement Staff and it was found that the Meter Glass was tampered through which the consumer was controlling the consumption and power theft was suspected. In order to fulfil the shortcomings the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,96,727/- and in case of non-compliance to the notice then his connection would be disconnected. In order to fulfil the shortcomings the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,96,727/- and in case of non-compliance to the notice then his connection would be disconnected. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount and at the same time challenged the said letter dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P2) before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee which in terms of order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P3) held as under:- "Shri Kikkar Singh and Sh. Harish Khanna appeared before the committee and were heard properly. The case was considered by the committee and it was noted that as per report of checking of the meter in M.E. Lab Ludhiana by Sr. Xen/Enforcement and Sr. Xen M.E. Ludhiana, Meter glass was found tampered and declared a case of theft of energy. So, the committee decided that the amount already charged is alright and recoverable." 3. The petitioner assailed the above said decision of the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee before the Dispute Settlement Authority. The latter authority in terms of order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) upheld the decision of the Zonal Level Dispute Committee and the amount already charged to the petitioner was held to be recoverable. The decision reached at by the Dispute Settlement Authority is as follows:- "1. The disputed meter No. 699771 was removed from the consumer premises vide MCO No. 71/74130 dated 1.1.2001 effected on 1.2.2001 due to installation of electronic meter (sic) load being more than 70 KW. The removed meter was packed sealed under the signature of consumer representative. This meter was taken to ME Lab. for checking. Meter was checked by two responsible officers i.e. Sr. Xen/Enf-4, Ludhiana and Sr. Xen/ME, Ludhiana in the ME Lab on 19.2.2001 in the presence of consumer. During inspection in the ME Lab. the meter glass was found tampered and consumer has been suppressing his consumption through meter tampering. This meter was inspected by the Authority on 13.5.2002 and observed as under":- That meter glass is in its place and is not displaced but there is a gap between the glass and the meter cover on the lower side through which paper or some other film could be inserted. It was inserted and demonstrated to the petitioner counsel. Thereafter, meter cover was opened. It was inserted and demonstrated to the petitioner counsel. Thereafter, meter cover was opened. On examination it was observed that some foreign material was being inserted as there are paint removed scratch marks near the point of entry on the back side. After the above observations, the meter was allowed to be packed in CBB with 2 Nos. paper seals carrying the signature of JW Shri Sukhdev Singh and Consumer. In view of above observations, the Authority does not agree with the plea of petitioner that minor gap in the meter glass is because it is a old T & P meter and further as seals on the meter are intact, therefore, it is a doubtful case of theft of energy. 2. The consumer extended his load from 33,724 KW to 46.406 KW in 10/83 and then to 58.356 KW on request and then again to 78.353 KW on 31.3.89 under VDS Scheme as per declaration of consumer on 27.1.1989. The said meter remained installed at the consumer premises up to 1.2.2001 when the same was changed to replaced with the electronic meter. But there was no substantial increase in the consumption of the consumer been after increasing load demand which points towards suppressing of consumption through artificial means by the petitioner. The consumption even did not correspond to the normal load factor and diversity factor for such type of industry. Further consumer himself admitted in his arguments that he had been running 40.5 KW load as an average for 8 hours which corresponds to consumption of 9720 units for full month but consumption of the petitioner has been much lower than this for most of the time. 3. The existing of artificial means at the consumer premises in the shape of tampering of meter glass confirms that petitioner had been extracting the energy by artificial means or otherwise contrary is proved. 4. Since in the present case artificial means existed meter glass was found tampered and scratches inside the meter body has been observed and further supported by the lower consumption confirms beyond doubt that consumer had been suppressing his consumption near to MMC. DSA, therefore, decided to uphold the decision of ZLDSC. The amount already charged to the consumer may also be kept in view while recovering the compensation charged. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Se/Member CAO/Member CE/Chairman" 4. DSA, therefore, decided to uphold the decision of ZLDSC. The amount already charged to the consumer may also be kept in view while recovering the compensation charged. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Se/Member CAO/Member CE/Chairman" 4. Accordingly, in terms of letter dated 21.1.2003 (Annexure P6), the petitioner was informed that the Dispute Settlement Authority decided his case and the amount charged was recoverable. In compliance to the said order the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 90,151/-. The said demand to recover the amounts as already noticed are assailed by the petitioner. 5. On notice, the respondent-Board through its Senior Executive Engineer, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana filed its written statement in which it is stated that the meter of the petitioner was changed on 22.10.1983 due to extension of load. The meter that was installed was T&P meter which was installed after due re-calibration. The Change Order dated 22.10.1983 (Annexure P1) shows that its reading was of 72 units only. It is stated that the meter of the petitioner was changed on 1.2.2001 from Electro Magnetic Meter to Electronic Meter since all the three Phase connections were being change to ensure correct reading and avoid theft of electricity. The charged meter was packed and sealed in a covered box and sent for testing. It was tested on 19.2.2001 in the presence of the petitioner and during testing it was found that there was a gap between the glass and meter cover and that some foreign materials was being inserted in the said gap. This was verified from the fact that the paint had been removed and there were scratch marks near point of entry and on back side. It is stated that the petitioner, however, disagreed with the report at that point of time. In view of the report of M.E. Lab, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P2) wherein it was indicated that the meter glass was tampered through which the consumer was controlling the consumption and that it was a case of theft of energy. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,96,727/- was demanded from the petitioner. The said demand notice was assailed by the petitioner before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee which upheld the demand in terms of order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P3). Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,96,727/- was demanded from the petitioner. The said demand notice was assailed by the petitioner before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee which upheld the demand in terms of order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P3). The said order was challenged by way of appeal before the Dispute Settlement Authority which was dismissed, it is stated that there is no error or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities and, therefore, the same are liable to be upheld. 6. Shri Kuldip Sanwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the orders passed by the authorities of the Board are arbitrary and that there has been a complete infraction of the principles of natural justice. In fact, there has been no proper consideration of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner before the authorities of the Board and that the orders passed by the authorities are vitiated for failure to give reasons in support of its decision and the reasons as given are cryptic. 7. In response, Sh. G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has supported the decisions assailed by the petitioner by contending that the petitioner in fact has been committing theft of electricity by tampering with the electricity meter inasmuch as foreign material was being inserted in the gap between the glass and the meter. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the authorities of the Board assailed by the petitioner. It would be appropriate to note that a perusal of the decision dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P-3) of the Zonal Level Dispute settlement Committee shows that the same is not a decision informed of or supported by reasons. The decision dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) shows that though brief history and pleadings of the petitioner have been noticed, however, the ultimate decision reached at is not a fair assessment of the consideration process by the Dispute Settlement Authority. 9. It is now well settled that an administrative authority exercising administrative or quasi judicial functions must pass a speaking and reasoned order in support of its decision. 9. It is now well settled that an administrative authority exercising administrative or quasi judicial functions must pass a speaking and reasoned order in support of its decision. Reasons in support of an order is now an accepted fact of the principles of natural justice and the law enjoins that this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere presence of compliance with it, does not satisfy the requirements as enjoined by law. Besides, if judicial review is to be effective the order must contain reasons in support of the order. A speaking order to put it simply is an order which contains reasons in support of its decision. 10. The The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and Anr., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1785, the Supreme Court made the following observations;- "It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd., C.A. No. 245 of 1970, decided on 17.12.1975 (S.C.). But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reason in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated 8th December, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated 4th June, 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases with the proliferation of Administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Government of India also failed to give any reasons in support of its order rejecting the revision application. But we may presume that in rejecting the revision application, it adopted the same reason which prevailed with the Collector. The reason given by the Collector was, a already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and it would, therefore, have been better if the Government of India had given proper and adequate reasons dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants while rejecting the revision application." 11. In Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1606, the appellant therein submitted applications in prescribed forms for mining asbestos. Similar applications were also made by respondent No. 3 therein. According to the appellants, his applications complied with all the requirements of the prescribed forms whereas those of respondent No. 3 were defective in some respects. In Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1606, the appellant therein submitted applications in prescribed forms for mining asbestos. Similar applications were also made by respondent No. 3 therein. According to the appellants, his applications complied with all the requirements of the prescribed forms whereas those of respondent No. 3 were defective in some respects. The State Government preferred respondent No. 3 therein by merely recording that the latter had adequate general experience and technical knowledge and are old lessees in the district without any arrears of mineral dues to the Government and that the mining lease applications of Shri Bhagat Raja appellant for the areas covered by the mining lease application of M/s Tiffins Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Ltd. is rejected. Practically, similar was the order with respect to other villages. The mater was taken in revision to the Central Government which in terms of the statutory rules, it was observed, was to take into consideration not only the material which was before the State Government but comments if any which the parties may make regarding the order of the State Government. The Honble Supreme Court made the following observations: "As has already been said, when the authority whose decision is to be reviewed gives reasons for its conclusion that the reviewing authority affirms the decision for the reasons given by the lower authority, one can assume that the reviewing authority found the reasons given by the lower authority as acceptable to it, but, where the lower authority itself fails to give any reason other than that the successful applicant was an old lessee and the reviewing authority does not even refer to that ground, that Court has to grope in the dark for finding into reasons for upholding or rejecting the decision of the reviewing authority. After all a tribunal which exercises judicial or quasi judicial powers can certainly indicate its mind as to why it acts in a particular way and when important rights of parties of far-reaching consequences to them are adjudicated upon in a summary fashion, without giving a personal hearing where proposals and counter-proposals are made and examined the least can be expected is that the tribunal should tell the party why the decision is going against him in all the cases where the law gives a further right of appeal." 12. In the case in hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various contentions that were urged before the Dispute Settlement Authority with regard to the meter that was removed on 1.2.2001 and in its place the meter that was installed on 22.10.1983 was an old T&P (Tools and Plants) meter, which was not checked in M.E. Lab. or before installing it. The learned counsel further contends that whatsoever defects was in the old meter was before its installation and not thereafter. It is stated that it was also pointed out that the consumption of the industrial unit of the petitioner which at the time of the old meter was the same as it was after 1.2.2001, that is, when the new electronic meter was installed. He had indicated the units which were consumed and had also made a reference to the consumption bill Annexure P-4 before and after installation of the electronic meter. A reference has also been made to the instructions of the Board and other arguments raised. 13. It would not be appropriate for this Court to go into these contentions as in exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the Authorities of the Board. However, it is borne out from the record that there has been a failure on the part of the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee, which is the lower authority, in not recording reasons in support of its decision. 14. The order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P3) passed by the Zonal Level Dispute Committee merely reproduces the report of the M.E.Lab, Ludhiana in terms of which the meter glass was found tampered and declared it to be a case of theft of energy. The said committee records;- "So, the committee decided that the amount already charged is alright and recoverable". 15. This definitely does not satisfy the test of speaking order which is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. The party affected is entitled to know why and on what grounds the order was passed against him. 16. The Dispute Settlement Authority in terms of its order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) has recorded some reasons which, however, do not satisfy the test of speaking order. The party affected is entitled to know why and on what grounds the order was passed against him. 16. The Dispute Settlement Authority in terms of its order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) has recorded some reasons which, however, do not satisfy the test of speaking order. The reasons of the Dispute Settlement Authority as reproduced above, do not spell out clear intent in the decision making process. They merely affirm the decision of the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee which decision, as already noticed is bereft of reasons. Therefore, in terms of the ratio of the judgment in Bhagat Rajas case (supra), wherein also the order in revision of the Central Government was quashed with the direction to decide the review application afresh, the appellate order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) of the Dispute Settlement Authority in the case in hand is also liable to be quashed. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the appellate order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure P5) and the intimation/bill Annexure P6 informing the petitioner of the decision of his case are quashed with the direction to the Dispute Settlement Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order. No costs.