Delhi High Court
Mr. Dheeraj Singh vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited on 18 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Delhi 125, 126 (2006) DLT 678
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Mamta, wife of the petitioner owns property No. B-46/6 Main Wazirabad Road, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53. She has constructed thereon a building consisting of a ground, first and second floor. A departmental store under the name and style of Asia Family Mart is being run from the building. It is stated in the writ petition that ground floor is being used for sale of merchandise. First floor is used as an office and second floor is used for domestic purposes. Petitioner who is the husband of Mamta claims to be running the departmental store. He claims to be user of the electricity supplied at the premises.
2. On 10.5.2005 the enforcement wing of the respondent conducted a raid at the premises. Following connected load used for domestic purposes was found:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Item Unit Load (Watt) Total Load (KW)
X Quantity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Lamp/Bulb 15W X 40 0.60 KW
2 Fluorescent Tube Light 40W X 8 0.32 KW
3 Refrigerator 250 W X 1 0.25 KW
4 Window Air Conditioner 2250 W X 2 4.50 KW
5 Split Air Conditioner 3000 W X 3 9.00 KW
6 Ceiling Fan 60 W X 6 0.36 KW
7 Exhaust Fan 180 W X 1 0.18 KW
8 Television 110 W X 1 0.11 KW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 15.32 KW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In respect of non-domestic load, following was noted:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Item Unit Load (Watt) Total Load (KW)
X Quantity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Lamp/Bulb 100W X 4 + 60 W X 15 1.30 KW
2 Fluorescent Tube Light 40W X 60 2.40 KW
3 Mercury Lamps 500W X 3 1.50 KW
4 CFL 11 W X 284 + 18 WX 60 4.204 KW
5 Halogen Lamp/Neon Sign Board 800 W X 1 0.80 KW
6 Photostat machine 1400 W X 1 1.400 KW
7 Window Air Conditioner 2250 W X 3 6.750 KW
8 Split AC 3000 W X 3 9.00 KW
9 Desert Cooler 1000 W X 1 1.00 KW
10 Table Fan 60W X 5 0.300 KW
11 Ceiling Fan 60W X 40 2.40 KW
12 Exhaust Fan 180 W X 3 + 120 W X 1 0.660 KW
13 Big Air Fresher Fan 60 W X 5 0.300 KW
14 Television 110 W X 1 0.110 KW
15 Pump motor 746 W X 1 0.746 KW
16 Hot Case 1500 W X 1 1.500 KW
17 Personal Computer 110 W X 3 0.330 KW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 34.700 KW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Following further was noted: 50 meter cable length black colour of 2X25 square mm diameter, attached to the electricity supply line of the respondent was found connected to a changeover switch. The changeover switch was found connected to the distribution circuit supplying electricity within the building.
5. Photographs were taken. In the inspection report itself a diagram was prepared showing how the cable was connected to the main supply line and to the changeover switch. Treating it to be a case of direct theft, 2 bills in sum of Rs. 4,47,050/- and Rs. 16,12,633/- were raised on the petitioner on 16th May, 2005. The first bill pertained to the billing load of 15.32 KW in the domestic category and the second pertained to the billing load of 34.70 KW in the non-domestic category. Needless to state the bills were raised as per tariff applicable pertaining to a direct theft case.
6. Petitioner challenges the said two bills.
7. 3 Electricity connections were obtained by the wife of the petitioner vide K. Nos. :-
i. 1250-V109-0114
ii. 1250-V109-0115
iii. 1250-V109-0116
8. The loads were applied for and accordingly sanctioned for a connection of 2 KWs each. On 8.10.2003 she deposited a sum of Rs. 6100/- pertaining to K. No. 1250-V109-0116 and Rs. 7900/- for K. No. 1250-V109-0115. Petitioner claims that his wife did so, so that the loads could be enhanced from 2 KWs to 10 KWs. Admittedly, till date, the loads have not been enhanced.
9. Vide office order No. CO-II/P-38/97-98/7 dated 9.7.1997 Delhi Vidyut Board circulated a scheme which permitted use of 1 KW load by directly tapping the main line on as is where is basis. Mamta applied under the said scheme and deposited Rs. 2545/- on 31.3.1998. Having done so, she hooked on a line directly to the main LV pole from where electricity was distributed.
10. The said as is where is basis connection was registered vide K. No. 1250-5361-0094.
11. According to the petitioner no fault was found with the meters when inspection was made. This showed that the 3 meters installed were not tampered with.
12. It is pleaded by the petitioner that evidenced by Annexure P-1 to P-4 bills were raised for the 4 connections. The bills were paid for. There was no reason why the petitioner should have resorted to direct theft.
13. Though various contentions have been urged in the writ petition as pleaded, at the hearing Shri Mukul Dhawan, learned Counsel for the petitioner restricted the challenge to the bills on merits by urging the following points:-
i. Mamta Rani was permitted to have a 4th connection on as is where is basis. She was entitled to directly tap the main supply line. As is where is basis connection was sanctioned vide K. No. 125053610094. Bills (Annexure P-4) were raised and were paid. Therefore, direct line from the LV main pole to the premises could not be taken to be a case of direct theft.
ii. 3 regular electricity connections were obtained. Evidenced by Annexures P-1 to P-3 bills were raised for these 3 connections. Consumption was recorded in the bills. There was no reason for the petitioner to resort to theft.
iii. Referring to the diameter of the cable found connected directly to the LV main and in reference to literature published by plaza cables it was urged that the cable could not carry a load more than 25 KWs. It was urged that this cable was insufficient to carry a load of 15.32 KWs + 13.47 KWs.
14. Restricting the arguments to the points herein above noted, learned Counsel urged that the bills had to be quashed.
15. Counter affidavit filed details what has been noted in the inspection report. The contents of the inspection reports have been sought to be made good in reference to the photographs taken on site which are annexed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit.
16. 35 photographs have been filed as Annexure R-1. A perusal of the photographs shows that the offending cable has been hooked directly on to the LV main line. The offending cable enters the premises and is connected to a changeover switch. From the said changeover switch current is distributed to the premises. Photographs show that from the changeover switch the whole building can be supplied electricity.
17. Reference to the photographs (Annexure R-1) has been made by the respondent in its pleadings in para 13 of the reply on merits. In the rejoinder filed, while replying to para 13 of the reply on merits, petitioner has nowhere stated that the photographs did not relate to the property in question. It had not been stated that the offending cable, changeover switch and further distribution as shown in the photographs does not relate to the inspection of the property. What is shown visually in the photographs is not traversed.
18. In the entire body of the writ petition I do not find any averment that the equipment and electric appliances listed in the two inspection reports dated 10.5.2005 were not installed in the premises. There is no assertion in the writ petition that the number of items listed are excessive or that their rating is incorrect. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the petitioner having not challenged the factual contents recorded in the inspection reports has admitted the same. Question is of drawing inference there from.
19. A perusal of the inspection reports show that for the domestic connection, 48 bulbs and tube-lights, 2 air-conditioners of 2.25 KWs, 3 split air-conditioners of 3 KWs, 6 ceiling fans, 1 exhaust fan and 1 television was found connected at site.
20. Pertaining to the non-domestic connection, apart from approximately 100 bulbs, tube-lights and CFL lights, 3 window air-conditioners of 2.2 KWs and 3 split air-conditioners of 3 KWs were installed.
21. A perusal of Annexure P-1 to P-4 being the bills received by the wife of the petitioner pertaining to the 3 sanctioned regular connections and one connection on as is where is basis shows that for K. No. 1250-V109-0114 monthly billing ranges from 136 units to 241 units, for K. No. 1250-V109-0115 it ranges from 132 to 812 units and for K. No. 1250-V109-0116 it ranges from 100 units to 610 units. Needless to state for the connection on as is where is basis, no meter being installed, billing is on a load of 1 KW.
22. My common sense guides me that for the 6 air-conditioners having load of 15.75 KWs in the commercial section of the building and over 100 light points besides 45 fans, consumption recorded in the bills is too meagre. Admittedly, a departmental store was being run. Assuming the departmental store to be open 10 hours a day and for the summer months the consumption cannot be what is recorded in the bills. Similarly in the non commercial segment, 5 air-conditioners having total load of 13.5 KWs besides 48 bulbs and tubes and 6 fans cannot result in a consumption as is recorded in the bills.
23. The as is where is basis connection obtained by the petitioner's wife entitle her to a connected load of only 1 KW to be consumed on the said line. Petitioner has not shown as to what part of the building was being supplied electricity through the connection taken on as is where is basis.
24. There is another very relevant point. The offending connection, through the changeover switch was found supplying electricity to the entire premises. It is obvious that electricity was being supplied to the premises through the 3 meters and additionally through the changeover switch, which in turn was attached to the LV mains.
25. It is a case of a smart consumer. The consumer has taken a sanctioned connection but has installed a load which is in excess. Through the medium of a changeover switch direct tapping is resorted to.
26. Arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the literature that the cable could not carry a load of more than 25 KWs is neither here nor there for the reason it is well known that cables can be overloaded. Besides, the consumer, knowing the cable capacity may use the equipments selectively. But that is not the point. Tariff applicable requires billing in the case of direct theft to determine the consumption on the basis of connected load, number of days on which the load would be consumed, number of hours and the use factor. Tariff has not been challenged. Since the tariff is not under challenge, respondent have to apply the tariff while raising the bills.
27. I accordingly find no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs in sum of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent.
