Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Eureka Forbes Limited, a public limited company, owned a composite premises in Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bengaluru. In 2007, it leased a portion of the premises to M/s Shell India Markets Private Limited for research and development activities. The petitioner had availed an electricity connection with a contract demand of 1250 KVA from the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM), bearing RR No. AKLHT 184. The petitioner and the lessee shared the electricity supply. On 22.09.2015, the Assistant Executive Engineer (R-3) issued an order under Clause 42.05 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity, alleging that the installation attracted penal measures and that the consumer was liable to pay back billing charges. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the impugned order and found that it was not a speaking order and did not provide any reasons or evidence to support the allegation of theft or pilferage. The court noted that mere fluctuation in load factor, without any proof of tampering or unauthorized use, could not justify penal assessment. The court also observed that the respondents had not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the order. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, if they intended to proceed further.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Penal Assessment - Back Billing - Clause 42.05 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity - The Assessing Officer imposed penal back billing charges on the petitioner based on alleged low load factor and suspected theft - The court held that mere fluctuation in load factor without any evidence of tampering or pilferage does not attract penal provisions - The impugned order was quashed as it was not a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (R-3) imposing penal back billing charges under Clause 42.05 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.09.2015 is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if they intend to proceed further.
Law Points
- Electricity theft
- back billing
- load factor
- penal assessment
- natural justice
- speaking order
- Clause 42.05
- Conditions of Supply of Electricity
