- (1.) The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal:- 1. Whether the courts below were in error in dismissing the suit, failing to notice that the alleged misuse/theft of energy had not been established by the defendant to justify a penal levy of electricity consumption charges ?
(2.) The plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below, is before this Court complaining that a theft of energy attributed to him was not established and the Courts below failed to notice that a penal levy could not have been effected without going through a process laid down under law.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that he was running a hotel business in partnership with two electricity connections A/c No.9750 and 9751. At the relevant time of inspection said to have been made on 27.08.1983, it was alleged to have been found that the meters were not working and the plaintiff was committing a theft of energy by taking electricity directly from the municipal mains. When the defendant assessed 3954 units as having been consumed on the basis of likely consumption of 16 lamps, 8 tubes, 16 fans and a water pump, the plaintiff filed the suit contending that the levy was arbitrary.;