- (1.) THE issues involved in these original petitions are identical and therefore, these original petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. OP Nos. 26123 and 27988 of 1999 are filed by the same petitioner challenging demands for penal and additional electricity charges in respect of unauthorised load and incorrect meter for different periods and OP No. 29518/1999 is filed by another petitioner challenging similar demand. Since the questions of law involved are the same in all the three writ petitions, I shall first decide those questions of law in OP Nos. 26123 and 27988 of 1999 and then apply the same to the fact situation in OP No. 29518 of 1999.
(2.) OP Nos. 26123 and 27988/1999: The petitioner is engaged in the business of running a freezing plant in the name and style of Deep sea Products. The plant has an electricity connection with a power meter and a light meter, for a total power allocation of 72 KW. On 04/06/1999, the Anti-Power Theft Squad of the 1st respondent Electricity Board, inspected the electrical installation of the petitioner and prepared, Ext. P1 mahazar, which was got signed by an operator of the petitioner, in which, it was recorded that the petitioner was unauthorisedly using 154 KW power load as against the authorised load of 72 KW. He was found using a welding machine and a 75 HP compressor motor which were not part of the authorised load. It was also recorded in Ext. P1 that one phase of the 3 phase light meter was not recording consumption resulting in the meter recording only 50% of the actual consumption. By Ext. P2 dated 22/06/99, the petitioner was directed to remove the additional load. By Ext. P4 dated 25/06/1999, the petitioner replied that the 75 HP load had been connected only to a generator installed by the petitioner, for sanction of using which applications have been submitted to the Board. It was further stated therein that they were drawing power only within the limit of 96 HP allocated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext. P5 demand for Rs.3,69,682/- along with Ext. P6 details thereof, which consisted of the following components calculated for the months of January to June 98. I. 3 times normal rate of fixed charges for unauthorised additional load of 82 KW. II. Penal charges for unauthorised installation of welding set of 13 KW. III. 2 times rate of current charges for the proportionate consumption to the unauthorised load. IV. 50% of the recorded consumption of light meter since one phase was not recording consumption. Against the demand, the petitioner filed Ext. P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was disposed of by Ext. P8 order, confirming the demand with the correction of the unauthorised load as 78 KW instead of 82 KW. The petitioner has filed OP No. 26123 of 1999 challenging those proceedings seeking the following reliefs: [i] issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 invoice issued by the third respondent and Ext. P8 order of the second respondent and quashing the same. [ii] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the third respondent to refrain from disconnecting the power supply to the premises of the petitioner bearing Consumer No. 9498 for non payment of the amounts covered by Exhibit P5 invoice of the third respondent as modified by Ext. P8 order of the second respondent. [iii] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 3 and 4 to conduct physical verification in the premises of the petitioner to ascertain the connected load in his premises and to revise all the bills issued to the petitioner after 25/06/99 on that basis. Thereafter, a further amount of Rs.1,84,175/- was demanded for the months of July, August, September and October, 1999 also on the ground that the unauthorised load had not been regularised, by issuing Exts. P5 and P6 in OP No. 27988 of 1999, and therefore, that original petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: [i] issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 invoice issued by the third respondent and quashing the same. [ii] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the third respondent to refrain from disconnecting the power supply to the premises of the petitioner bearing Consumer No. 9498 for non payment of the amounts covered by Ext. P5 invoice of the third respondent. The petitioners contention is that he has not used any unauthorised load. According to him, the compressor motor and the welding unit were not connected to the main lines and were intended to be used only in the generator installed, for sanction for using which he had submitted applications and the same was never connected to the main lines. According to him, the electrical installation of the petitioner is connected to a transformer of the Board having a capacity of only 100 KW and therefore the petitioner cannot connect a load of 149 KW in his electrical installation. He disputes the recitals in Ext. P1 mahazar and submits that the signature of an operator therein cannot be taken to mean that the petitioner has agreed to the contents thereof. According to him, clause 42 of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Energy is not attracted to the fact situation to hold that the petitioner had exceeded the contracted load without permission and therefore, there is no justification for billing at three times for the allegedly excess connected load. As regards the 2nd item of demand of penal charges for unauthorised installation of welding unit also, he contends that the same was used only for 1/2 an hour and there is no evidence to show that he had used the same for 7 days.
(3.) THE petitioner disputes the demand for 2 times current charges for the proportionate consumption to the unauthorised load, on the ground that insofar as the respondents have no case that he had consumed energy which are not recorded in the meter, Regulation 43 is not attracted and therefore, no penal charges are recoverable from him. As far as the demand for 50% of the recorded consumption of the light meter on the reasoning that one phase was not recording consumption is concerned, the petitioner contends that without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector as provided under S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the respondents had no jurisdiction to decide the fact of short recording and the extent thereof.;