- (1.) A writ petition had been filed before the High Court by the respondents, challenging certain demands raised by the appellants and for restoration of electrical connection. Facts leading to that writ petition are that the officials of the appellants disconnected the electricity supply to the respondent's establishment after the Central Vigilance Squad made a physical verification of the meter/metering installation at the factory and found that there was a direct tapping line from the transformer secondary site to the LT distribution mains bypassing the meter circuit. Thus there was an unmetered consumption. These facts were recorded in a physical verification sheet which was signed by the officers of the Central Vigilance Squad, certain other persons and the employees of Respondent 1. In this regard a complaint was also lodged by the Electricity Board with the police station concerned. The writ petition was allowed by holding that there was no power conferred upon the appellants to decide suo motu the extent of electricity pilferage and raise the demand thereof; that if the consumer had committed any offence he was to be punished in accordance with law by an appropriate prosecution; that the matter should have been decided by the Inspector under S. 26-B of the Electricity Act, 1910; that the claim for amounts in the supplementary bill was barred by limitation; that the service of a notice was a prerequisite to any disconnection of the electricity.
(2.) The appellants carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench which inter alia specifically focussed its attention on the following two questions: "7.Whether W. B. SE has the authority to disconnect the supply on the basis of allegations of pilferage without any notice 2. Whether W. B. SE had the authority to determine the quantum of unmetered consumption in cases of pilferage and raise bills on the basis thereof -
(3.) On the first question the High Court concluded that the facts recorded were sufficient to form an opinion or prima facie view that there had been a theft of electricity justifying the disconnection of the line under clause 25 of the agreement without notice. This finding is in favour of the appellant and there is no challenge to this part of the order by the respondents and we need not examine this aspect any further. That finding therefore becomes final.;