A.K. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ - to the C.E.S.E. Limited without prejudice to its rights and contentions on account of the claim for alleged pilferage of electricity. It is also directed that in accordance to that the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of meter replacement charges and a sum of Rs. 30/ - on account of reconnection charges without prejudice to its rights and contentions. On deposit of the aforesaid amounts, the existing meter shall be removed and the same shall be sealed by the Officers of C.E.S.C. Limited and such scaling must be acknowledged in writing by the petitioner as well as the Officers of C.E.S.C. Limited. It was further directed that upon such replacement the C.E.S.C. Limited shall forthwith energise the replaced meter and continue to supply electricity to the petitioner. It is also directed that the original meter shall be produced by the C.E.S.C. Limited before the adjudicator and the seal of the meter shall be removed in presence of the petitioner by the adjudicator. It is also observed that after the meter is adjudicated, the petitioner shall be given appropriate credit for the amounts deposited in terms of the order. Subsequent thereto it shall be open to the C.E.S.C. Limited or the petitioner to enforce the decision of the adjudicator or challenge the same in accordance with law as they may be advised. Aggrieved against this order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31st January, 2000, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner. A notice was given to the petitioner by the C.E.S.C. Limited in terms of Clause 29(C) of its Conditions of Supply alleging pilferage of electricity by the petitioner and the supply of electricity was disconnected. Along with this notice, the C.E.S.C. Limited claimed money on account of this pilferage. Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge passed aforesaid order.
(2.) We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the records. On account of the strong denial of the allegations made by the petitioner that it has not committed any pilferage we, in order to be assured that whether the allegation prima facie made by the C.E.S.C Limited is correct or not, directed the Chief Electrical Inspector of the State of West Bengal to examine the allegation of tampering the meter and report to this court of his finding. This was opposed by the learned Counsel for the C.E.S.C. Limited. The report filed by the Chief Electrical Inspector reads as under: As per directive of the Hon'ble High Court a site inspection was carried out on 16.3.2001 in presence of the representative of both parties. During inspection it was found that the meter Sl.No. 2120707 -[3 x 5 (10) Amps] and meter Sl.No. 23502 - [330 x (60) Amps] were disconnected. The appearance of the cover and terminal scale of the disputed meters in comparison to those of the other meters in the same Kisok Box did not have general indication resemblance. It is also observed that the position, condition, colour, connection with the scaling wires may not give any probable impression of being disturbed or tampered by any means whatsoever. For the above reasons, it may not conclusively be inferred as to whether seals are spurious or not. Hence, tampering electrical energy may not be concluded on the basis of observations as above.
(3.) This report was objected to by the C.E.S.C. Limited by filing a supplementary affidavit. We directed the Chief Electrical Inspector as well as the Engineer of C.E.S.C. Limited to be present in Court. Both of the technical persons were present in court and representative of C.E.S.C. Limited tried to demonstrate with reference to the meters that this kind of pilferage is visible from glass window of the meter. We do not want to express any opinion after hearing both the technical experts as the matter is yet to be adjudicated that whether there was a pilferage or not. Therefore, we do not propose to prosecute this line at the present and leave it for the competent adjudicator as per the Conditions of Supply to adjudicate in the matter.;