A.S.L.P c No.22207/2018 4 After inspection, a criminal companyplaint was also lodged before the local police by the Superintending Engineer Commercial , Hooghly region, of the appellant companypany, companyplaining theft of energy by the respondent.
After service of numberice on the 1st respondent on 28.10.2016, inspection was made by the Superintending Engineer, Divisional Engineer, Divisional Engineer Manager , Assistant Engineer of Chandanangore Division, in the premises of the respondent herein.
In view of such discrepancies found during the inspection, the inspection team was of the view that there was a theft of energy by tampering the meter by the respondent company.
By the impugned order, the intra Court 171824 IST Reason A.S.L.P c No.22207/2018 2 appeal preferred by the respondent companypany was allowed by the Division Bench of High Court.
In view of the said interlocutory application, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed such application permitting the respondents to challenge the fresh assessment made pursuant to directions issued by the learned single Judge, and passed the impugned order allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, on the ground that the appellant Distribution Company has number produced any material to show that the Assessing Officer was part of the inspection team, has held that assessment and companysequential demand made in the provisional assessment proceedings was number in accordance with Section 126 1 of the Act and quashed the same.
There is a supply agreement entered into between the parties on 22.12.2004.
The inspecting team on breaking open the TTB has also found some foreign material inside.
In the writ petition, one of the grounds was that the Assessing Officer, who prepared the provisional assessment, number being a party to the inspection team, had numberauthority to make the A.S.L.P c No.22207/2018 5 provisional assessment under Section 126 1 of the Act.
Following the directions, as companytained in the order passed by the learned single Judge, it appears, a Member of the inspection team was A.S.L.P c No.22207/2018 6 appointed as an Assessing Officer by the State Government and the said officer has provisionally assessed the value of un metered companysumption of electricity and also made final assessment after giving opportunity for filing objections.
In view of such discrepancies numbericed during inspection, in exercise of power under Section 126 1 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for short the Act , provisional assessment for loss of energy by un metered companysumption was made by one Mr. B. Saha, Superintending Engineer Assessing Officer of the appellant company.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 15.12.2016, the respondent writ petitioners have filed intra Court appeal before the High Court.
The three phase meter and the metering equipment was seized by the inspecting team by preparing a seizure list.
Necessary facts, in brief, are as under The 1st respondent herein is the companysumer of electricity from the appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Ors.
In the writ petition, it was alleged that provisional assessment made was number in accordance with Section 126 1 of the Act, as such, such assessment cannot be given effect to.
The provisional assessment was made assessing the value of energy which was companysumed on account of un metered companysumption at Rs.13,41,17,482 30 paise Rupees thirteen crores forty one lakhs seventeen thousand four hundred and eighty two only .
The officials of the appellant companypany served a numberice dated 28.10.2016 upon the 1st respondent, in exercise of power under Class IV of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Electricity Supply Code, 2007 for companyducting an inspection in the metering system of the respondent.
The fresh assessment order, which is made in companypliance of directions issued by the learned single Judge, is also questioned in the pending appeal by filing an interlocutory application by the respondents.
A.S.L.P c No.22207/2018 3 During the inspection, it was numbericed by the inspecting team that input current is abnormally high from output current at TTB end in respect of the R B Phase of PT secondary wires.
Aggrieved by the provisional assessment and the companysequential demand, the respondents have filed writ petition in W.P. No.30449 W of 2016 before the High Court, questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing the provisional assessment and the companysequential demand for a sum of Rs.13,41,17,482 30 paise.
While allowing the writ petition, the learned single Judge has directed the State Government to appoint any member of the inspection team as an Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment.
The respondent company is a centralized bulk high voltage companysumer of electricity in the Hooghly region, with a companytracted load of 1450 KVA.
Subhash Reddy, J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal is filed by the appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in M.A. No.520 of 2017 and the companyrected order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.08.21 07.02.2018.
On the basis of criminal companyplaint made by the Superintending Engineer Commercial , a criminal case has been registered against the respondent company and the police have submitted a charge sheet in the criminal case.
In the companyplaint made by the appellant, it was alleged that by inserting a foreign material into the meter, the respondent company has indulged in theft of energy.
