CWP No. 2320 of 2008 1 In the High Court Of Punjab and Haryana ,Chandigarh CWP No. 2320 of 2008 Decided on . 11.11.2008. Punjab State Electricity Board, District Sangrur, Punjab. Petitioner M/s. Garg Gram Udyog Samiti and others Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh Present: Mr. APS Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Anjali Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. Hemant Gupta, J( Oral ) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 9.5.2006 ( Annexure P8) passed by Chief Electrical Inspector to Government of Punjab, Patiala and order dated 28.6.2007 (Annexure P9 ), passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The respondent no.1 ( hereinafter refered to as consumer ) has got the connected load of more than 80 KW. The petitioner Board on 30.4.2001 issued meter change order for installing electronic meter as load of connection was more than 70 KW. The meter was changed on 27.5.2001. A report was prepared, submitted on 28.5.2001 to the effect that the consumer has been stealing energy by putting wire from MCB and though the hole on the meter top done for the purpose. A report as reproduced by the petitioner in its written statement before the Chief CWP No. 2320 of 2008 2 Electrical Engineer reads as under:- Havells make 3x50/5 A capacity meter Serial No. 217681 was removed by A. E. E. / S/U Dhuri from the site for installing Electronic Meter as per instructions of the Board, Load being more than 70 K.W. This meter was brought in M. E Lab Patiala on 28.5.2001 by Sh. Babu Singh, J. E. S/U Sub Division Dhuri. On checking the meter in M.E Lab, three number small and fine holes on the top of the meter cover were found. These holes were drilled with the ulterior motive to steal energy by putting the wire through holes. In order to check the position of the M.C.B at site, Enforcement Unit II visited the premises of the consumer at Dhuri alongwith A. E. E Sub Division, Dhuri on checking the top surface of M.C.B with the piece of cloth and slightly scratching the dirt, a hole of 3 mm.dia aprox filling with M seal like substance was found. The substance was easily removable and a fine hole was noticed, thus the consumer has been stealing energy by putting wire through the M. C. B and meter top hole done for the purpose. Some snaps with our camera was also taken by putting the wire through holes. It is clear theft case.” Though the matter was disputed before the Dispute Settlement Committee, but the consumer also raised a dispute before the Chief Electrical Inspector in terms of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Chief Electrical Inspector initially returned a finding that it is a case of theft of energy and therefore, it does not fall within the scope of Section 26(6) of Indian Electricty Act, 1910 but in Appeal, learned Commissioner in its order dated 3.6.2005 returned a finding that CWP No. 2320 of 2008 3 meter of the consumer was removed for installation of electronic meter qua more load and not for the theft. The old meter was tested in lab without informing the consumer, therefore, additional demand raised is not justified. Matter was remanded back to the Chief Electrical Inspector to consider the objection of the consumer. Consequently, the Chief Electrical Inspector vide the order impugned in the petition, returned a finding that it is not the case of theft of energy. It was also found that the meter was checked on 9.5.2001 and it was found to be working with the permissible limits of error. Said order has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in case of allegations of theft of energy, the jurisdiction of Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon a Supreme Court Judgment in 1988(1) Supreme Court Cases page 23 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others v. Smt. Basantibai. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The report in respect of hole in the electric meter was submitted after the meter was removed from the premises of the consumer. Still further, the report is to the effect that by scratching the dirt on the top of the meter, a hole was found. It shows that such hole was not used by the consumer when the meter was working in the premises of the consumer. The meter was checked by the staff of the petitioner in the lab of the petitioner without associating the consumer after the meter was removed from the premises of the consumer. Keeping in view the physical condition of the meter and the circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that the CWP No. 2320 of 2008 4 order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector that no case of theft of electric energy is made out, is perfectly legal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another argument that the consumer has deposited the amount claimed from the consumer in pursuance of the decision of the Zonal Level Disputes Committee, and therefore, the consumer cannot be permitted to raise dispute regarding demand raised by the Board. The deposit of the amount by the consumer is to ensure the supply of electric energy. The such deposit will not lead any estoppel on the part of the consumer so as to infer attempt of theft of energy. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Hemant Gupta) Judge 11.11.2008. ( Nawab Singh ) mamta Judge