- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. It appears that by letter dated 10th November, 2005, the consumer informed the Station Manager, West Bengal state Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. that the meter provided to him for the purpose of recording consumption of electricity had got burnt. He made a request for replacement of the meter as also for submission of quotation for the purpose of installation of new meter. On the basis of this request, the meter was inspected. The quotation was issued on 11th November, 2005. The payment was made on 14th November, 2005. The new meter was duly installed. The consumer continued to run his husking mill without any let or hindrance. On 5th July, 2008, the consumer was informed through a letter that an inspection had been held on 4th July, 2008 and pilferage of electricity had been detected. This was challenged by the consumer in Writ Petition No. 18521 (W) of 2008.
(2.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the alleged pilferage took place prior to 10th november, 2005. It also submitted that the meter was intentionally burnt by the writ petitioner to cover up for the pilferage of electricity. Upon consideration of the entire matter, the learned Single Judge has expressed an opinion that the claim for pilferage is a ploy invented in order to extort money. This conclusion according to the learned Single Judge was irresistible in view of the installation of the new meter. Once a new meter had been installed there could be no question of any pilferage prior to 10th november. 2005. Therefore, according to the learned Single Judge, the entire activity of the appellant was illegal, aimed at extorting money from the consumer. Learned Single judge further concluded that it is the handiwork of unscrupulous officers of the company and, therefore, strict action is needed to prevent the repetition of this kind of invasion in future. This apart, the learned single Judge concluded that in law under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the licensee could have claimed payment for the alleged pilferage of electricity for a period one year before the date of inspection. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed. The notice sent through letter dated 5th July, 2008 was quashed. A direction was issued that the steps to be taken by the Chairman shall be informed to the writ petitioner. The supply of electricity was directed to be restored within twenty-four hours. The licensee was directed to pay costs assessed at rs. 10,000/ -.
(3.) UPON consideration of the entire issue, we are of the opinion that on law the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference as clearly the appellant could not have made any claim beyond a period of one year, as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The recovery beyond one year was sought to be justified by the learned counsel for the appellants, on the ground that no inspection was conducted at the time when the claim was made by the writ petitioner that the meter had been burnt. In fact, it was only on 4th July, 2008 that some sort of inspection was allegedly conducted. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel. The appellants seem to have slept over the entire matter for over two years, and sent the notice dated 5-7-2008 to cover up the lapse. The learned single Judge, therefore, correctly held that the recovery is beyond limitation.;