Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) These batch of matters were heard together as the issues both on fact and law are identically same. In all these matters order of the appellate authority under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Rules framed thereunder are challenged. Both the award and order of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector as well as the Appellate authority have been challenged. Incidentally, it is recorded that by two common orders and awards of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector and the Appellate Authority of the disputes between the five several consumers and the writ petitioners are sought to be resolved.
(2.) Both the authorities have held that the disputes raised by the writ petitioners herein and demand for payment on account of alleged un-metered consumption are unfounded and unjustified, obviously the writ petitioners are unhappy with all these decisions. Facts, which are identical in all the five cases, are shortly put hereunder.
(3.) On several dates, some times in the months of May 1999 the writ petitioners disconnected the electric supply line of the respective consumers respondents on the grounds of theft and pilferage of electric energy by replacement of seals of meters and also tampering of the body of the meters. Of course, this disconnection was made without notice. So, all these writ petitioners approached this Court for restoration of supply line. It is also to be noted that on the respective dates of disconnection there was no express authorisation under the law to the CESC to disconnect supply line without notice, even in case of theft and pilferage of electric energy. On 15th May 2000 the Condition of Supply was amended with the approval of the Government, whereby, amongst others, the CESC was empowered to disconnect electric supply line in case of the suspected case of theft and pilferage of electric energy. The disputes relating to non service of on certain condition restored the supply line. Respective consumers on their behalf filed separate writ petitions.;