MATADIN Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are consumers of electricity to whom electrical energy is supplied by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board Officials of the Board, suspecting that there has been illegal and unauthorised abstration of electrical energy by the petitioners stopped supply of energy to the petitioners by disconnscting their service, as they are authored to do under Clause 10 of -he General Terms and conditions. Pending determination of the amount of compensation payable to the Board for the unauthorised abstraction of energy in accordance with Clause 9 as sure of interim relief, the Board, through its Officers offered to each of the petitioners to resume supply of electricity if they paid a certain amount estimat. ed by the Board tentatively as compensation. At that stage the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Writs to direct the respondent Board to restore supply of electricity and to restrain the Board from enforcing its alleged demand. In each of these cases an Interim order has been granted directing the Board to resume the supply of electricity on condition of the petitioner depositig a specified amount with the Board: When the cases were taken up for hearing yesterday, Mr. Ananta Babu, Learned Counsel for the Board submitted that the amounts of compensation payable by the petitioners have not yet been determined in accordance with the rules and that the Board is not making any demand on any one to pay compensation, that stage not having arrived yet. Supply of electricity to the petitioners having been stopped in accordance with rules, the Board offered to resume supply if certain amounts being tentative estimates of compensation were deposited. THEse offers were made to the consumers to prevent hardship to the petitioners whose industries and businesses may be dislocated if electrical energy is not made available. THE consumers need not avail themselves of the offer if they so desire. Mr. Ananta Babu also pointed out that Rule 9 of the General Terms and Conditions and B. P, Ms. No. 40, dt: 21-1-1964 make detailed provision for enquiry by the Superintending Engineer into the question of compensation, that thrre is provision for giving an adequate opportunity to the consumer and a further provision for appeal to the Chief Engineer THE consumers can raise any question which they want to raise before the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer. Sri Ananta Babu also stated that the Board will abide by the interim orders passed by this Court and will resume supply of electricity to the petitioners without insisting on payment ot any amount untill the determination of compensation by tire Superintending Engineer. As the concession made by the Board appeared to be reasonable, I asked the learned Counsel whether they sitll wanted to pursue the Writ Petitions. THEy preferred to argue the Writ Petitions. Sri Reddi Panthulu, learned counsel in W. P, No. 1894/1987 etc , urged that Rule 10 of the General Terms and Conditions gave arbitrary power to the Board to demand suitable compensation without defining how the com. pensation suould be determined. Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel in W. P. No. 2057/1967 etc., urged that Rules 9 and 10 are inconsistent with Sections 24 and 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and with Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules. Section 49 (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act is as follows;;

(2.) WHEREAS the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board has made special arrangements for checking malpractices with reference to user of electricity and it is deemed desirable to prescribe the functions of the various officers and determine the procedure to be followed by them: It is hereby declared as follows: