Dismissed

M/S Rubi Oil Mill v. P.S.E.B., etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2014CWP/12338/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demand notice for alleged theft of electricity. The High Court upheld the demand order, finding that tampered lead seals and a sharp increase in power consumption established a case for theft of energy, justifying the charge despite the meter cover not being tampered with.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the demand notice for theft of electricity was upheld.

M/S Rubi Oil Mill Vs P.S.E.B., etc. — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 12338 of 2001 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 12338 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.04.2014

¶5

M/s Ruby Oil Mill

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Pb. State Electricity Board, Patiala & others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶14

This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

¶15

India is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the demand of Rs.1,72,837/- made by respondent No. 3 vide notice No. 294 dated 15.02.2000 (P-3) and order dated 28.03.2000 passed by respondent No. 4 (P-4) and order dated 29.06.2001 passed by respondent No. 5 (P-8) and demand notice dated 02.08.2001(P-9).

¶16

The petitioner-Mill was having an electric connection bearing a/c no. MS-4 with sanction load of 69.800 KW. On 14.02.2000, this connection was checked by Sr. Xen/Enf Ferozepur and as per checking report lead seals bearing No. S-0176 provided on the MCB and CTC and paper seal Sr. No. 127905/March 99 and Sr. No. 127906

¶17

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP No. 12338 of 2001 (O&M)

¶20

dated 08.10.1999 of AE/OP. Makhu was found tampered/torn. These seals were found preserved in as found condition. Yellow paper seal bearing No. 178008/March 99 dated 14.02.2000 was affixed on MCV tampered lead seal. The checking was carried in the presence of Sr. Xen/Op. Zira and the consumer representative Sh. Manoj Kumar.

¶21

On the basis of the above said report, case of theft of electricity was made out against petitioner-mill and vide notice dated 15.02.2000 (P-3), Rs. 1,72,837/- was charged. After depositing 1/3^rd of the disputed amount i.e Rs.57,863/-, the case was discussed in Zonal level DSC in the office of CE/OP, West Bathinda on 28.03.2000 and it was decided that the amount charged is recoverable. Thereafter, the petitioner-mill deposited 50% of the balance amount i.e Rs.57,487/- and the case was subsequently forwarded to the Dispute Settlement Authority.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the meter is not tampered with, the respondents have no jurisdiction to get the compensation for theft of energy as per sales regulation No. 134.1 which says that the Compensation should be levied where fake seals or tampered seals or broken/missing seals enable the opening of the meter cover and actual consumption recorded leads to the conclusion

¶23

that the consumer had been indulging in the theft of energy. In the

¶24

present case, there was no tampering with the meter

¶25

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

CWP No. 12338 of 2001 (O&M)

¶28

or any metering cover, hence the presumption of theft could not be made against the petitioner-mill. There was no tampering of any meter equipment which enabled the consumer to open the meter cover, hence no theft was committed.

¶29

This aspect has been considered in detail by the Dispute Settlement Authority while passing the order dated 29.06.2001 (P-8). As per the checking report, it has been observed that the lead seals bearing No. S-0176 was provided on MCB and CTC and paper seal bearing No. 127905 and 127906 of March, 99 of AEE/OP, Makhu found tampered and detailed report has already been on record. The checking was carried in the presence of Sr. Xen/OP, Zira and consumer Sh. Vinod Kumar. Further the seals were preserved in as found condition. Engineer S.S Mann appeared before the DSA and produced the consumption data from 02.02.2000 to 02.02.2001 and also lead seals removed from MCB and CTC and MTC which was found tampered. Box containing the lead seal was produced and after the permission of the authority, the same was opened which contained 2 No. lead seals removed from MCB and CTC. The authorities were also shown that lash wire on one side was already broken and other side was cut on 27.03.2001 during his checking. It was observed by the authority that

¶30

the hole in which the lash wire was passing was found large due to its

¶31

use with some sharp edge. Signs of plier on the lead seal were also

¶32

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

-4-

¶34

CWP No. 12338 of 2001 (O&M)

¶35

shown. It was also pointed out that consumption of the consumer after

¶36

checking has increased to the tune of 12000 to 18000 for the period 11/2K to 03/20001 whereas the consumption during the period 98-99 was to the tune of 2000 per month which clearly indicated that the consumer was using artificial means prior to the checking of Enforcement staff.

¶37

The above evidence was considered by the authorities and

¶38

came to a conclusion that it is a clear case of theft of energy and thus the amount already charged was upheld on the following grounds:-

¶39

“4. Decision

¶40

i) DSA observed that present case of the petitioner-firm is regarding theft of energy against A/C No. MS-4 with sanctioned load of 69,800 KW connection was released during 8/98.

¶41

ii) Connection was checked by Er. S.S. Mann, Sr. Xen/Enf on 14.02.2000 and detailed checking was produced before authority entered in ESR 37/17.

¶42

iii) Er. S.S. Mann checking officer appeared before authority.

¶43

iv) Seals in as found conditions were produced before authority in duly packed condition and it was observed that:

¶44

(a) Hole in which the lash wire was passing was

¶45

found large due to its use with some sharp edge.

¶46

(b) Signs of plier on lead seals were also seen.

¶47

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

-5-

¶49

CWP No. 12338 of 2001 (O&M)

¶50

(c ) Seals tampered.

¶51

(v) Sharp increase in consumption was noticed from the consumption data.”

¶52

Apart from the fact that the meter was found tampered with, data with regard to consumption of electricity shows that there

¶53

was theft of energy. The consumption data was 8394 quintal from April 99 to March, 2000 and thereafter it was 17496 quintal from April, 2000

¶54

to March, 2001. The consumption data was increased after the checking was done on 14.02.2000. The average consumption increased from 12,000 to 18,000 units for the period November, 2000 to March, 2001. On the other hand, consumption during the period 98-99 was 2000 per

¶55

month which indicates that the consumer was using artificial means prior to the checking.

¶56

The checking report and consumption data have been rightly assessed assessed by the authorities and no ground is made out to quash notice No. 294 dated 15.02.2000 (P-3) and order dated 28.03.2000 passed by respondent No. 4 (P-4) and order dated 29.06.2001 passed by respondent No. 5 (P-8) and demand notice dated 02.08.2001(P-9)

¶57

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶58

03.04.2014 G Arora

¶59

( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶60

Arora Gaurav 2014.07.22 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Rubi Oil Mill v. P.S.E.B., etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rubi Oil Mill v. P.S.E.B., etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Islam Vs Chandigarh Administration etc.

Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors.

S.T Cottex Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Haryana Cooperative Joint Farming Societ Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajinder Sharma Vs P.S.E.B

Nar Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.