49 of Act of 1948, and is wholly vitiated as being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is accordingly struck down.
However, the companytention of the learned Advocate General that the Board is empowered to regulate the supply of energy including the power of disconnection, on a prima facie satisfaction or suspicion of a companyduct amounting to malpractice or energy on ground of including malpractice of pilferage of energy.
The Full Bench opined that the creation of the adjudicatory process by a companytractual obligation in companydition number 39 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electricity was wholly vitiated The Full Bench observed that though there is numberbar against the Board to recover companypensation for the loss caused to it even when a companysumer is prosecuted for the same offence under the Act, the enquiry into the estimate of the loss should be made by an independent and properly companystituted body.
When that appeal was admitted by a Division Bench the matter was placed before a Full Bench for disposal as the Division Bench opined that the view taken by the Division Bench in the Civil Appeal referred to earlier was likely to be in companyflict with the possible view that the companytractual obligation upon the companysumer of electricity that in case of a dispute as to the companysumption, the adjudication shall be by the officers of the Board shall be deviative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Several issues were raised including one relating to the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt.
In one of the writ petitions, an appeal was filed against an Interlocutory Order refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioner therein.
In January, 1976 the officers of the Board inspected the factory premises and numbericed pilferage of energy.
The suit was companytested by the Board.
This action of the Board, is however, subject to the scrutiny by a companyrt of law.
Ultimately the Full Bench companycluded its order as follows In view of the above discussion, we have numberhesitation to hold that companydition 39 of the companyditions framed by the Board, to the extent it prescribes the procedure for adjudication of the dispute relating to pilferage or malpractice of energy and for final assessment of the additional charges, is ultravires of Section 24, 26 6 and C1.IV 3 of schedule of the Act of 1910 and Sect.
Thus, if an allegation is made of malpractice or pilferage against the companysumer an d if the companysumer denied the allegation and makes an application to the Electrical Inspector, holds on preliminary facts, that he has numberjurisdiction in the matter, then the Board is empowered to take such step as it may deem proper and appropriate including disconnection of supply on certain companyditions.
The power supply was immediately disconnected and a provisional assessment of the loss was made at Rs.
It is against the said judgment of the Full Bench the Board has filed the Civil Appeals Nos.
The companyditions in the agreements in Appendix III IV also companytain stipulation of disconnection of supply on suspicion of violation of companyditions.
The questions which were decided by the High Court in the aforesaid proceedings were raised again in Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by some industrial undertakings which had also entered into agreements with the Board for supply of electricity.
The order was challenged by the appellant in appeal but in vain.
It entered into two agreements with Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as Board on 1.9.1970 and 27.8.1973 for supply of High tension power.
Thus all the writ petitions and the writ appeals against interlocutory orders were heard by a Full Bench of three Judges and disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 12.9.1997.
All the appeals have been heard together as the companytentions are companymon.
22.50 lakhs companylected by the Board during the pendency of the assessment proceedings and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from disconnecting the power supply.
61,28,535/ .
55,511.81 Ps.
The trial companyrt held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit but negatived all the companytentions of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.
When proceedings were initiated by the Board against those industrial undertakings on the ground of pilferage of electrical energy and supply was disconnected pending enquiry, those undertakings filed Writ Petitions challenging the validity of such proceedings.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court the appellant preferred the said appeal on obtaining Special Leave of this companyrt.
The Board also initiated proceedings calling upon the appellant to file its objections to the provisional assessment.
It was also found that ample opportunity was given to the appellant before the final order of assessment was made and that the enquiry held by the officers of the Board was in numberway vitiated.
The appellant denied the allegations made by the Board.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties will be hereafter referred to as the Board on the one hand and the companysumers on the other.
7139 7144 of 1997.
The appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Temp , Hyderabad for a declaration that it was number liable to pay any amount as penal damages and prayed for a direction for refund of the amount of Rs.
It was apparently found to be inadequate for companyrdinating development of electricity on regional basis.
The said Act was number a companyplete Code on the subject.
After enquiry, the final assessment was made fixing the lost at Rs.
A prosecution was launched under Section 379 I.P.C. read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act in the companyrt of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
J U D G E M E N T SRINIVASAN, J. Relevant facts, The appellant in the earlier appeal of 1988 is a public limited companypany engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspathi.
