D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P(C) No. 746 of 2008, whereby the writ application was disposed of with certain observations directing the respondents to raise a provisional bill and after considering and deciding upon objection, if any, by the petitioner, to prepare and raise the final bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and, with a further direction to restore electrical connection to the petitioner's factory premises subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 3.00 crores. The amount so deposited was made subject to final decision that may be taken by the respondents after considering the objections filed by the petitioner against the provisional bill.
(2.) Prayer in the writ application as made by the appellant/petitioner was for directions to the respondents : 1]. To forthwith restore the power supply of the petitioner, which was disconnected by the respondent No. 5/7 on 1-2-2008. 2]. To not to take any coercive/penal action against the petitioner pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner. 3]. To direct the respondents not to raise/ charge any average/guarantee bill upon the petitioner for the disconnection period. 4]. To award adequate compensation/cost to the petitioner for the purported illegal actions of the respondents.
(3.) Brief facts of the case is that the appellant/petitioner had taken electricity connection from the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') for its factory at village Chaha in the district of Ramgarh in the year 2000. The supply of electricity was made through the appellant's own erected supply lines. Initially, the appellant was the only consumer and therefore, single meter was installed by the supplier at its own end. There was no separate meter installed in the premises of the appellant. On account of the considerable distance from the sub-station to its factory premises, the appellant had suffered huge amount of transmission loss to the extent of Rs. 5.00 crores in between January, 2001 to October, 2004 to which, though respondent supplier had agreed to reimburse the appellant, but later, did not pay any heed in the matter. The appellant filed a writ application vide W.P. (C) No. 6023 of 2001 before this Court and obtained a direction from the Court vide order dated 29-1-2002 against the DVC authorities to take a final decision in the matter of grant of transmission loss to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Court's order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A further direction was contained in the Court's order to the respondents to revise all the bills and to refund/adjust the excess paid amount. The respondent DVC failed to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court as a result of which, a sum of Rs. 5.00 crores as claimed by the appellant as excess amount paid by them, remained pending with the respondents. The respondent DVC authorities continued to raise the bills upon the appellant on the basis of the meter, which was installed in the sub-station till October, 2004, whereafter a separate meter was installed within the premises of the appellant. The bills for electric consumption began thereafter to be raised on the basis of the readings in the meter installed within the premises of the appellant and till December, 2007 appellant had continued to pay all the monthly bills., However, despite the fact that the feeder line was installed by the appellant at its own post, the respondent DVC chose to supply electrical energy to two other consumers by the same feeder in July, 2006 and in March, 2007 through only single meter installed at the sub-station of the DVC, although separate meters were installed in the individual units of the consumers. The appellant claims that under the terms of the agreement, for the supply of electric energy, it is the supplier who has to install the metering equipment and to maintain them. Such meters are supposed to be properly sealed and the seals are not to be interfered with by the consumers, or even by the supplier except in the presence of their respective duly authorized representatives. The grievance of the appellant is that on 1-2-2008 the respondents 6, 7 and 8 visited the appellant's factory premises on the plea that they had come for maintenance work of the metering units and thereafter, disconnected the power supply without giving any opportunity to the appellant and despite protest made by the appellant's men who were present. The disconnection was carried out by breaking open the seals of the meter room, meter boxes and junction box. It is alleged that when the appellant's men had wanted to resist, the respondent Executive Engineer had even invited the police to thwart the resistance. It was on the next day, that the appellant received message telephonically followed by FAX message from the respondent No. 8 that electric supply was disconnected under superior orders and on the ground that the electric supply cable was found punctured at several points by some illegal methods and the electrical energy was pilfered by artificial means leading thereby to a wide variation to the extent of 80% in the meter reading recorded at the premises of the appellant. The appellant was also informed that the respondent No. 7 had lodged an FIR against the appellant on the allegation of theft of electrical energy. Claiming that there could not be any possibility of pilfering or stealing energy through pin-holes from the 33 KV load of electric supply cable and further claiming that the allegations in the FIR are totally false, concocted and misleading, the appellant had challenged the very authority of the respondents either to enter into the factory premises of the appellant for any search or seizure or even to lodge FIR against the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The appellant also challenged the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 or any of the respondents to disconnect the power supply of the appellant. The appellant has claimed that though, under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, licensee or supplier may disconnect the electric supply in the event of detection of theft of electricity, but power to enter into the premises and to make inspection, search and to break up seals etc., is vested only with any officer of the licensee or supplier who is authorized in this behalf by the State Government and further, the disconnection of the electric supply can be made only by the Appropriate Commission or any officer of the licensee or supplier who is duly authorized and not by the respondents. It is further claimed that only such officer who is duly authorized, has the power to lodge complaint in writing relating to commission of offence, in the police station, and such power being not vested with the respondent No. 7, the entire acts and deeds of the respondents is totally illegal and the prosecution of the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is therefore, illegal and against the provisions of law.;