- (1.) In brief, the facts that led to the finding of the present appeal are as under: This appeal is directed against an order dated 12.04.2016 wherein the writ petitioner/respondent was successful in getting the relief against the appellant CESE Ltd. An electric connection was given to the premises in question by the appellant Company. A surprise raid was conducted by the appellant licensee which revealed, according to appellant, several consumers were using electricity by direct connection from the service cut-out to the main switch by-passing the actual meter resulting in unauthorised consumption of electricity for commercial purpose which is other than the purpose for which electricity connection was given. A provisional Bill amounting to Rs. 54,19,925/- was sent to all the users of electricity. The writ petitioner/respondent challenged the said provisional Bill on the ground that he has nothing to do with the unauthorized use of electricity since he is only a caretaker of the premises in question under private respondent, therefore he contends that he cannot be saddled with the liability in question but also commission of the offence. He also raised objection questioning the quantification of the amount in the provisional Bill on the ground that the assessment of amount in the provisional Bill is not in terms of provisions of Sub-Section 6 of Section 126 of The Electricity Act of 2003. He relied upon Sk. Jaffar Ali & Anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity distribution Company Limited & Ors, 2010 AIR(Cal) 84 to contend that in the said decision it was held that the assessment should be made at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service means the service for which electricity meter was installed.
(2.) Per contra, learned advocate for the appellant company raised objection with regard to the above contentions contending that if the writ petitioner was a caretaker, it was within his knowledge how unauthorised electricity was consumed by several persons who are occupying different portions of the said premises. So far as the assessment in the provisional Bill, according to them the Judgment in of the Apex Court in the case of Executive engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTH CO.) & Anr. Vs. Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012 2 SCC 108 was applicable to the facts of the case since Apex Court decision was rendered subsequent to the decision of Sk. Jaffar Ali by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. They also relied upon in the case of Classic Colour Lab Vs. Assistant engineer, Electrical Section Central, 2014 3 ILR(Ker) 309 which refers to the decision in Seetaram Rice Mill . The licensee Company also placed reliance on Regulation 5.1 to contend that the procedure or methodology to assess provisional assessment under Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act is envisaged, therefore, there was no justification for the writ petitioner to contend that the assessment has to be made on the category of service for which electricity connection was taken.
(3.) Learned Judge after referring to the above mentioned three decisions opined that the decision of Apex Court only refers to the purpose to be achieved by Section 126 that is to put an implied restriction on unauthorised consumption of electricity. Learned Judge opined that the interpretation of sub-Sections 5 and 6 of Section 126 by division Bench of this Court is to be accepted since division Bench has properly dealt with the contentions of licensee Company so far as interpretation of the provisions sought to be put by the licensee Company in Sk. Jaffar Ali case. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Similar arguments were raised before this Bench both by the appellant licensee company and also respondent/writ petitioner. We have given serious consideration to the arguments advanced as well as the provisions of the electricity Act and the Regulations made there under apart from perusal of above mentioned citations. So far as the facts of the present case are, till date the owner of the building is not before us raising any serious dispute. The status of the writ petitioner as a caretaker is sufficient so far as raising the Bill in the name of the caretaker writ petitioner since the meter stands in his name.;