2010 (7) TMI 876 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it was a case of clubbing - Held that - The matter requires to be remanded to the Competent Authority in the Electricity Board to determine and record the clear findings afresh as to whether it was a case of clubbing or not in accordance with the provisions and observations afore-referred with liberty to the parties to produce any further documents, if they so desire. The authority shall pass a final order expeditiously. The fate of the notices and consequences thereof shall be subject to the final order that may be passed by the Competent Authority. Parties are at liberty to challenge the order so passed in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's order.
2. Interpretation and application of the Electricity Supply Regulations.
3. Validity of the inspection report by the Electricity Board.
4. Determination of whether the premises in question are distinct or the same for the purpose of clubbing electric connections.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's Order:
The appeal challenges the National Commission's order dated 21st February 2006, which dismissed the review petition by the Punjab and Haryana State Electricity Board against the State Commission's decision. The State Commission had quashed the demands raised by the Electricity Board and ordered a refund with interest. The National Commission upheld the State Commission's finding that the properties were distinct, based on municipal records and ownership evidence.

2. Interpretation and Application of the Electricity Supply Regulations:
The regulations framed under Section 49 and Sub Section (j) of Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, mandate a single connection per premises. Clause 3.5.2 specifies that existing consumers applying for new connections in the same premises should normally be denied and instead asked to apply for an extension of the existing load. The regulations aim to prevent misuse of multiple connections to evade higher tariffs. The circular CC No. 4 of 1997 encourages consumers to opt for clubbing their loads to facilitate smooth transmission and avoid revenue loss to the Board.

3. Validity of the Inspection Report by the Electricity Board:
The inspection report conducted by the Electricity Board's officers indicated that there was only one plot (Plot No. 136) with two electric connections, suggesting that the premises were not distinct. The report noted that the properties had a common wall with a shutter and a gate, implying possible misuse of connections. The consumers had signed the inspection report under protest but did not provide specific objections or evidence to counter the findings. The presumption is in favor of the inspection report unless rebutted with cogent evidence.

4. Determination of Whether the Premises are Distinct or the Same:
The State Commission's decision was based on documents showing separate ownership and municipal numbering (136 and 136-A). However, the inspection report suggested the premises were interconnected. The Supreme Court noted the need for a clear finding on whether the premises were distinct or the same. If the premises are found to be the same, clubbing of connections and higher tariff penalties would apply. If distinct, the consumers would not be liable for the additional charges.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Competent Authority in the Electricity Board to determine afresh whether the premises are distinct or the same, and thus, whether clubbing of connections is warranted. The authority is directed to pass a final order expeditiously, with liberty for the parties to produce further documents. The parties are allowed to challenge the final order in accordance with the law. The appeals are disposed of with the above directions, and parties are to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →