- (1.) JUDGMENT
(2.) LEAVE granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 12/03/1993 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in M.P. No. 1484/91. The admitted position is that on 21/08/1991, the appellants staff inspected the electrical installation of the respondents connected by the appellant-Board. In the proceedings recorded after the said inspection, the facts noted are as under :- "During the course of inspection, Shri Dilip was present as the representative of M/s. Harsh Wood Products, Banmore, and found the following irregularities, Connection No. 1156 [2556] 1. No seal found on Meter terminal cover. 2. Body seals of the meter, bearing No. 490812 [Right side] and 01443 [Left Side] found tampered. 3. The seals on Meter Box, bearing No. 38556/SE Morena, C-10/MPEB Gwalior, found OK. Connection No. 1158 (2824) 1) No seal found with Meter terminal cover. 2) Meter Body seals, bearing NO. 49817 (Right Side) and 013361 (Left Side) found broken and Tampered. 3) Seal on meter box bearing No.33434/SE Morena C-10/MPEB Gwalior found OK. In both the above connections, the difference was noticed, in serial No. and the location of the seals provided on Meter Body. The serial No. and the location of the meter body seals, as found in the inspection carried out on dated 16-3-91, are found different in the checking carried out on date 22-8-91. The difference noticed in serial No. and location in checking is as hereunder :- JUDGEMENT_522_4_1996Html1.htm This panchnama has been prepared in view of Meter Body seals found tampered and Meter terminal seals found missing so as to interfere and control the energy consumption as per his own desire. Maintaining "Status Quo" of the tampered and broken body seals of Meter of Both the above connection, new Seals are fixed on the meter box bearing No. M1919 MPEB/MT on Connection No. 2556 and NO.M1920 MPEB/MT on connection No. 2824. The old seals provided on the meter box are in custody with the Executive Engineer (O&M) Morena. JUDGEMENT_522_4_1996Html2.htm
(3.) IN the said proceedings, one Mr. Dilip had represented the respondent-INdustry and he was also the signatory to the proceedings. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondents on 26/08/1991 informing that the meter body seals were tampered and damaged with seal wire. The seals of the meter terminal block were found missing which would indicate that the function of the meter was disturbed to reduce the consumption of electrical energy. Therefore, the respondent - INdustry was directed to pay the difference of the assessed among said to be in a sum of Rs.6,51,256.61 at the earliest. It was also pointed out that bill for the further past years was being examined and the decision would be taken and intimated in due course. IN furtherance thereof, the respondent INdustry submitted the explanation to the show cause on 29/08/1991 wherein he requested that on humanitarian grounds, viz., "the supply of the installation will please be restored immediately and we give the undertaking that if any balance amount becomes due for payment on account of vigilance checking, the same will be deposited immediately on providing the bills for such amount". The reply was also given by Mr. Dilip who had participated during inspection. Upon these facts, the question emerges; whether the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order directing them to pay the difference of the amount. The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that the respondent has a right of hearing before the authority subject it to payment of the amount which is alleged to be due towards the theft of electricity as required under Section 31 (e) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Since that opportunity was not given, it violated Articles 20 (1) and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the order was void. Accordingly, it directed the appellant Board to restore within 24 hours the service connection No. 2556/1156 of the Industry. It is also stated with respect to the claim of the Board against electricity stolen that it would be open to the appellant to raise legal and appropriate demand in a legal and lawful manner. Accordingly, the demand was quashed.;