Smt. Chhabibai Wd/O Shamrao ... vs Spanco Nagpur Discom Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 244 Bom

    wp4475-12.odt                                   1                         Judgment



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                  
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                         
                         WRIT PETITION NO.4475/2012



    Smt. Chhabibai wd/o Shamrao 




                                                        
    Gadgilwar, aged about 65 years,  
    Occu- Nil, R/o Plot No.125, 
    Jaidurga Layout-2, Somalwada,  
    Nagpur.                                ..                           PETITIONER




                                               
                           ig        .....VERSUS.....


    Spanco Nagpur Discom Limited, 
    Narang Tower, Civil Lines,  
                         
    Nagpur.                                ..                             RESPONDENT



                      Shri R.V. Rathod, Advocate for Petitioner.
      

                      Shri M.S. Wakil, Advocate for Respondent.
   



    CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND SUNIL P.DESHMUKH, JJ.                          
    DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT        : OCTOBER 12,  2012.
    DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT  : OCTOBER  20,  2012.





    JUDGMENT (Per Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.)

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to

respondent to reconnect energy supply to her residential accommodation

which had been disconnected without any prior notice or intimation and

wp4475-12.odt 2 Judgment

terming the action by the respondent to be bad in law. The petitioner

claims that since decades she has been a consumer of the electrical energy

and there had not been a single occasion of abrupt disconnection, such as

the one that has taken place on 12.09.2012. It has been claimed by her

that the respondent had entered the premises of the petitioner without

any notice or intimation and had disconnected the electric supply,

purporting to conclude that the meter had been tampered with and thus

the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted and punished. Simultaneously

the petitioner had been handed over a demand note of Rs. 1,00,000/-

instructing her that she would be required to deposit a sum of Rs.

1,00,000/-.

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not tampered

with the meter and on the contrary the said meter had been replaced by

the then M.S.E.D.C.L. about 6-7 years back since the earlier one, had not

been working properly. According to her, the seal had been intact and

had not been tampered with. The alleged theft cannot be imputed to her

if at all the meter had been tampered with and running slow.

4. The respondent has submitted that on 12.09.2012 the electric

meter of the petitioner had been inspected around 1.30 p.m. and found

that it had been running slow. Further, the meter had been opened in

the presence of the petitioner and panch witnesses and had been found

to have been tampered with. It is under these circumstances, she had

wp4475-12.odt 3 Judgment

been given a bill of Rs.74,265/- along with compounding charges of Rs.

24,000/- assessing consumption at 6538 units. It has been further stated

that the petitioner had initially agreed to pay but had thereafter neglected

the same and has instead rushed to this Court. It has been submitted that

pursuant to Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the supply

had been disconnected and complaint had been lodged. It is claimed that

there is no substance in the allegations that without any prior notice the

electric supply of the petitioner is disconnected and the electric meter was

removed, since the same had been done as per its empowerment under

the Electricity Act. It has been claimed that there is special Court under

said enactment and the petitioner has a remedy under the same before

the said Court.

5. The petitioner appears to be 65 year old lady staying along

with her elder sister claimed to be in her nineties and daughter of about

40 years along with her child and that together they get about Rs.

16,500/- per month. It is claimed that they are not in a position to

deposit such a huge amount with the respondent. Said position is not

disputed by the other side, however, purport to support their action

contending that it is in accordance with the provisions of law. Looking at

that, the petitioner is senior citizen and is staying along with two other

ladies and a child, the respondents with empathy would do well to

appreciate problems being faced and suffered by the petitioner. It

wp4475-12.odt 4 Judgment

appears that the electricity supply has been cut off on 12.09.2012 on the

allegation of theft. The same will have to be looked into and investigated.

It would not be in appropriate, till such time, electric power supply be

reconnected to petitioner's house.

6. Under the circumstances without detaining, prohibiting, or

preventing the respondent to investigate and inquire into the matter for a

proper action in respect of the allegations, we deem it appropriate to

direct the respondents to reconnect the electricity supply to the

petitioner's house on payment of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent. The

petitioner would be liable to pay for electricity consumption charged by

respondent regularly per month. The respondent on completion of

investigation would take action in accordance with law.

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                  JUDGE                                   JUDGE





    HALWAI