Pradeep Kant, Naseemuddin, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner No. 1, which is said to be a Company, of which petitioner No. 2 is the Director, have approached this Court challenging the Circular dated 15.9.1998 and 7.10.1999 and, also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parlies not to impose any peak hour penally on the ground of M.R.I. Report (Meter Reading Inspection Report). The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the penalty for consuming the electricity during peak hours can only be imposed after making personal Inspection by the officers who have been named in Para 9 of the U. P. Electricity (Regulation of Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977, as amended on 30th April, 1984 by means of a notification dated 30th April. 1984. The Circulars, therefore, which provide for imposing penalty for using electricity during peak hours on the basis of Meter Reading Inspection Report are bad in law and cannot be sustained. From a perusal of Para 9 of the Order, 1977 and its amendment vide notification dated 30th April. 1984. It is clear that a duty has been cast upon the authorities to impose penalty for consuming electricity during peak hours only after the inspection is made. It does not lay down as to in what manner the inspection is to be made and whether it should be personal inspection.
(2.) Inspection is done and means collecting Information for a particular purpose. The necessary information or the required data can be gathered either by making personal inspection or by providing a recognized electrical, mechanical or electronic device, etc., or any other lawful mode, sufficient enough to procure the information. If on such information permissible action is taken, no exception can be taken. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that each day personal inspection is to be made by one of the officers mentioned in the order and each day violation is to be taken note of. only on such inspection being made, which would also be relevant for the purposes of imposing further penalties, if taken to be correct would mean that on each and every day an officer has to make inspection of every industry or factory or places where electricity is supplied for finding the violation which may entail penalty or disconnection of electricity in such establishments. Such an interpretation to the Rule cannot be given which makes it impracticable. The inspection presupposes that by any means or mode electricity consumed during restricted period is to be found out and if calculated by means of such procedure or method (in the instant case by an electronic device) and is taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing penalty or for the purpose of disconnecting the electricity, it cannot be said that the action would be invalid because the physical personal Inspection has not been made by the officer mentioned in the Rules or the Orders. Besides this, the Order is of the year 1977 which has been amended in 1984 whereas this process and device of knowing electricity consumption during each and every minute by means of electronic device has been provided and introduced in the year 1998. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in Writ Petition (Civil) No 79 of 1997, Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, UPSEB and others, the Supreme Court has also directed that the U. P. Power Corporation shall also vigorously pursue the cases relating to the power theft which are mentioned by the High Powered Committee. It appears that a report was prepared on the recommendation of the High Powered Committee in which the matter of large scale theft of electricity by the consumers of all category was considered and for industrial consumers Electromechanical meters were sought to be replaced with Electronic meters of appropriate accuracy class at all Industrial consumers as per details given in para 2.5.1. For effective checking of theft of electricity. Secure Meters have been provided for accurately measuring all parameters of the supply voltage, current, inst. power factor. KW, in addition to active energy. The SEMS energy meter is designed around an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) based micro controller with its own programming language. It also has a high degree of programmability to accommodate various types of applications and tariffs. This metering system provides a total solution to energy metering. It is not a meter alone, or an energy billing computer but an all encompassing system that covers all these aspects. It offers in one package a complete system for the analysis of power and revenue. The Secure Meters thus give not only the electricity consumed by a consumer but also the time during which it has been consumed and if it is found that during the period of restriction the electricity has been consumed and which is Indicated by such Meter Reading Inspection Report, it cannot be said that the order of realization of penalty or for disconnection of electricity has been passed without making any inspection and without there being any material. In case the consumer is dissatisfied with the order, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps and bring his grievance to the knowledge of the authorities under the Act which are empowered to look into the validity of the order and also of Meter Reading Inspection Report. Merely the ground that personal inspection has not been made by either of the officers would not be sufficient to reject the quantum of the penalty or disconnection and would not dislodge the presumption that the consumer has used the electricity during restricted hours.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid background, we have to examine the Circulars dated 15th October. 1998 and 7th April, 1999. The Circular dated 15th October, 1998 provides that in industrial units, static meters have been provided which reflected all stages of supply, which stands recorded in the MRI. Under Section 22B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, consuming electricity in peak hours (restricted hours) render a consumer liable for penalty and disconnection. The penalty for first violation and for subsequent violations have also been provided. It further provides that whenever the computer print of the MRI is obtained and if it indicates that there has been consumption in violation of the Government Orders, action can be taken in accordance with law. The said Report would also indicate the number of violations committed by the consumer. Action for erring S.D.Os. Junior Engineers and Line Men, etc. has also been proposed. Subsequently the Circular dated 7th April, 1999 has been Issued which says that the Prabandh Samiti of the Parishad has decided on 16th March, 1999 that on the basis of the first Meter Reading Inspection Report, the consumer would be saddled with the penalty for one violation in one month but thereafter on the basis of the MR1 the action can be taken for repeated violations, as per Circular dated 15th October, 1998. These circulars only provide for the manner in which the computer print of the MRI has to be considered and in what manner the consumer has to be punished or penalized. It is worthwhile to mention here that obtaining the computer print of the Meter Reading Inspection Report also falls within the process of inspection which even fulfils the requirement of the Order of 1977 and the notification dated 30th April, 1984.;