- (1.) PETITIONER in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of an order quashing the Inspection Report dated 31.01.2009, the provisional assessment and the corresponding Bill dated 03.02.2009, issued by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively. A further prayer has been made for issuance of an order restraining the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Prayer has also been made for a direction upon the respondents to restore forthwith the electric supply to the petitioners premises without imposing any condition for payment of any amount.
(2.) THE petitioner being a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, had obtained HT electric connection from the respondent Electricity Board and has been availing the contract demand of 200 KVA of electric energy. The petitioner has been paying electricity charges for the energy consumed, as per the recordings in the meter installed within it premises. The average consumption of electric energy, as claimed by the petitioner is 20,000 Units per month. The concerned authorities of the respondent JSEB used to make regular inspection of the meters installed in the premises of the petitioner and on no such occasion, did they find any irregularity or anomaly in the recordings of the Units in the meters. The last such inspection was made on 10.9.2008. The contention of the petitioner is that when it detected that the transformer oil was leaking from the transformer installed in its premises, a report to that effect was lodged with the concerned authorities of the respondent JSEB, but they did not take prompt step to rectify the damage. Yet, on 31.01.2009, few officers of the respondent Board, all of whom below the rank of respondent no. 4, namely, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, visited the petitioners premises on the plea that they had come to repair the damage of the transformer. After carrying out the purported inspection, that too in absence of the responsible officers of the petitioner, the inspecting team prepared a report of inspection and on the allegation that certain numbers of seals affixed on secondary LT of the distribution transformer, were found to be duplicate and holding the petitioner responsible for affixing the duplicate seals and by drawing inference thereby that the petitioner had committed unauthorized use of electric energy, they lodged an FIR on 1.2.2009 against the petitioner for alleged offences under section 379 of the IPC and also under sections 126, 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The electric connection to the petitioners premises was snapped on the same day. A provisional Bill on the basis of the assessment of the loss caused due to the alleged pilferage of electric energy to the tune of Rs. 24,29,520/ -, was raised by the respondent Board against the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the manner in which the inspection was carried out by the officers of the respondent Board, and the Inspection Report prepared and submitted by them, on the ground that the inspection having been carried out in absence of any authorized representative of the petitioner, it is illegal and contrary to the prescribed Rules and therefore, the Inspection Report is illegal and of no consequence to the respondent Board. Petitioner has also challenged the provisional Bill on the ground that the manner of assessment is totally erroneous and contrary to the Rules prescribed and it has been raised without recording any finding as to whether unauthorized use of power has been made by the consumer. Reference in this context has been made by the petitioner to the Judgments reported in AIR 2007 Delhi 85 and AIR 2006 Calcutta 59. ;