Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1710 (DEL)

SIMLA DEVI v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.

2006-09-25

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2006
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondents, on advance notice, states that the petition can be disposed of in terms of directions of Court. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's grievance in these writ proceedings is that the impugned bill for the sum of Rs. 10,20,626/- was issued without granting proper opportunity of appearing pursuant to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent-BSES. It is also claimed that the materials relied upon by the BSES were not furnished. ( 3 ) THE respondent-BSES in the present case had inspected the petitioner's premises on 25. 7. 2006. As per the BSES, the connected load was in excess of the sanctioned load and also the meter was found allegedly tampered. It is alleged that the meter, in addition, was found to be slower than the normal parameters. ( 4 ) A speaking order was issued which held the petitioner guilty of dishonest abstraction of electricity; the order was issued on 28. 8. 2006. ( 5 ) MR. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that both the speaking order and the bill are unsustainable because they were not preceded by proper opportunity and the respondents had violated principles of natural justice. It was also alleged that the show-cause notice was not served upon the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme court in Transmission Corporation of A. P. Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s. Sri Rama krishna Rice Mill, II (2006) SLT 723=ii (2006) CLT 75 (SC)= air 2006 SC 1445 , to say that even in case of theft and pilferage of electricity, the service provider is under an obligation to provide reasonable opportunity which may extend to granting opportunity of cross-examination of the officials who level the allegations. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that the show-cause notice in this case was actually given to the petitioner but he did not appear and contest the proceedings before the Assessment Officer. It was submitted that regardless of this factual position, a further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to answer the charges and that all the materials which are to be relied upon by the respondent, for the issuance of the speaking order, would also be furnished. It was submitted that regardless of this factual position, a further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to answer the charges and that all the materials which are to be relied upon by the respondent, for the issuance of the speaking order, would also be furnished. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the Transmission Corporation's case (supra), had held that if the statement of officers in the course of similar proceedings are to be relied upon without being tested by cross-examination, the consumer would be highly prejudiced and therefore had read into the concerned provision, the requirement of such opportunity. The Court had also noticed the judgment in hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A. P. State Electricity Board and Others, IV (1998) slt 182= (1998) 4 SCC 470 , and other previous judgments. The Court, however, cautioned that the nature of adjudication in such proceedings held by the service provider would be radically different from an inquiry conducted by the State or central Government under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The Court further ruled that it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever statement of a departmental officer is pressed into service for the purpose of domestic adjudication, a right to cross-examination is in-built. In such circumstances, the Court finally held that if an application requesting the grant of opportunity to cross-examine an official is made the request has to be considered by the adjudicating authority who will have to either grant it or pass a reasoned order in case it is sought to be rejected. ( 8 ) IN this case having regard to the above legal position, settled by the supreme Court and the statement of the parties, the respondents are directed to grant a fresh hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: (1) A copy of the inspection report and the show-cause notice shall be handed over to the petitioner tomorrow. e. 26. 9. 2006 on his approaching the respondents; (2) The petitioner shall file his reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks; (3) The Assessing Officer shall issue a notice indicating clearly the date, time and venue for hearing the petitioner. (4) The respondents shall also furnish copies of the documents/materials which they seek to rely upon to establish the charge of dishonest abstraction of electricity. (4) The respondents shall also furnish copies of the documents/materials which they seek to rely upon to establish the charge of dishonest abstraction of electricity. This shall be made available within a week from today. (5) The Assessing Officer shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same directly to the petitioner within four weeks of conclusion of the hearing. ( 9 ) IN view of the above directions the petition is entitled to succeed, although partially. The respondents are directed not to give effect to the impugned bill till the issuance of the adjudication order by the Assessing Officer pursuant to these directions. The said bill shall be subject to the fresh speaking order. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. Copy dasti, to the parties under the signature of the Court Master. Writ Petition disposed of.