1996 (4) TMI 540 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

The Supreme Court in the present case considered an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding the detection of malpractice in the use of electrical energy by a respondent industry. The core legal questions addressed in the judgment include whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order directing the respondent to pay the assessed amount for theft of electricity, and whether the respondent was entitled to a hearing before disconnection of the electricity supply.The Court analyzed the relevant legal framework provided under Section 31(e) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which empowers the electricity board to disconnect supply if malpractice related to the use of electrical energy is detected. The Act allows for immediate disconnection in cases of theft of electricity, without the requirement of a seven days' notice typically mandated for regular non-payment situations.The Court noted that the respondent industry was given notice of the tampered meter seals and missing terminal block seals, indicating interference with the meter to reduce energy consumption. The industry was directed to pay the assessed amount for the theft of electricity. The High Court held that the respondent had a right to a hearing before being required to pay the amount, citing violations of constitutional provisions under Articles 20(1) and 21.However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the appellant-board had the authority to disconnect the supply immediately upon detecting malpractice. The Court found that the respondent's agreement at the time of installation and the prima facie evidence of tampering did not necessitate further hearing before disconnection. It concluded that the action taken by the appellant-board was not in violation of constitutional provisions or principles of natural justice.In light of the above analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and directing the restoration of the service connection to the industry. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to a hearing before disconnection in cases of detected malpractice leading to theft of electricity.