2006 (2) TMI 597 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the consumer has committed malpractice or pilferage of energy and if so satisfied proceed to assess to the best of his judgment, the loss sustained by the Board on account of such malpractice or pilferage of energy by the consumer? Held that - Appeal dismissed. As has been rightly noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment where the reliance is only on accounts prepared by a person, cross examination is not necessary. But where it is based on reports alleging tampering or pilferage, the fact situation may be different. Before asking for cross examination the consumer may be granted an opportunity to look into the documents on which the adjudication is proposed. In that event, he will be in a position to know as to the author of which statement is necessary to be cross-examined. In the instant case the respondent had not indicated as to why the cross-examination was necessary. If a fresh application is made, the same shall be duly considered by the appellate authority, keeping in view the principles indicated above.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality of judgment by Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding final assessment by appellant No.1-Corporation; Opportunity for cross-examination of officials; Interpretation of Terms and Conditions of Supply; Compliance with principles of natural justice; Application of reasonable opportunity; Necessity of cross-examination in adjudication process.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involves a challenge to a judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding a final assessment made by appellant No.1-Corporation, the successor of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. The controversy centers around the opportunity for cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon in the final assessment process. The Terms and Conditions of Supply, notified by the Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, are crucial in determining the procedural requirements for such assessments.

The High Court emphasized the quasi-judicial nature of the enquiry, stating that fair play necessitates the opportunity for cross-examination when statements or reports are relied upon. The appellant argued against this view, citing legal precedents that officers' statements, in this case, should be considered by the assessing authority without the need for cross-examination. The respondent contended that Clause 39.9.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply inherently includes the right to cross-examine officials to prevent prejudice to the consumer.

The Supreme Court analyzed the situation, distinguishing previous judgments related to disconnection notices and the absence of personal interest of adjudicators. It highlighted the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to the consumer, as defined in legal texts and previous court decisions. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be applied, even if the Terms and Conditions of Supply do not explicitly mention cross-examination.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that the right to cross-examine officials should be considered on a case-by-case basis, with consumers required to demonstrate the necessity for such cross-examination. The adjudicating authority must carefully evaluate requests for cross-examination, ensuring a fair and just process. The judgment underscored the importance of applying the principles of natural justice and providing consumers with a reasonable opportunity to defend their case effectively.