JUDGMENT
Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The writ petitioner, who is a consumer of electricity bearing Consumer No. 15010113017 and meter No. 1169603, has prayed, inter alia (a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the electricity to the premises of the petitioner forthwith and not to deal with the meter which has unlawfully been taken possession of on 27.2.1992, by the respondents, from the premises of the petitioner i.e. Meter No. 1169603 (b) Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce all records relating to the present case before this Hon’ble Court and upon perusal of records and cause, if any shown, conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner by issuance of appropriate writ, order or orders for restoration of electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner, (c) Rule in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above, (d) Interim order directing the respondents to restore the electricity forthwith in the premises of the petitioner being 7/5, Burdwan Road, P.S. Behala, Calcutta-700027 and (f) to pass such other order or orders.
2. It is contended that all on a sudden by letter dt. 21.2.92 the respondent No. 2, Senior Commercial Executive, South West Regional Office of C.E.S.C. Ltd. informed the petitioner that an inspection was carried out at the above premises when it was observed that no load was connected against the said meter and asked the petitioner to submit a reply within 15 days as to whether the said meter is any longer required by him. Since the petitioner was taking step to reply to the letter the respondent No. 3 along with one Mr. Das of Vigilance Department of C.E.S.C. Ltd. disconnected the supply of electricity and removed the meter on 27.2.92 at 3-30 p.m. After receiving the message of disconnection of electricity and removal of the meter the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. with the Alipore Police Station. The allegations of the petitioner are that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and mala fide by removing the meter of the petitioner and disconnecting the electricity in the most highhanded manner. It is urged that the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 does not permit the respondents to remove the meter or disconnect the electricity at the petitioner’s premises without any notice to the petitioner. Stating all these facts the petitioner has sought for the reliefs as indicated above.
3. The writ petition was entertained and upon hearing both sides an interim order was made to restore supply on certain conditions of making payments.
4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent C.E.S.C. by filing a comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated that there is an overhead bare conductor street lighting line running North-South along the West footpath of the main Burdwan Road. The petitioner’s premises is situated on the West of cul-de-sac with its main entrance on the west footpath. The premises is often let out for wedding, reception parties and other festivities. Complaints have been received from several persons over telephone that there was large-scale pilferage of electricity mainly from the overhead street lighting lines during such festivities. An inspection was carried out at the site on 21st February, 1992 immediately on receipt of such a complaint after some festivities held on 19/20th February, 1992. During the inspection it was observed that the contractor had already removed all electrical fittings and decorations. The total connected load was such that had those been connected to the meters existing at the premises, the meters would have been burnt due to severe overloading. Since the respondent No. 1 could not detect the actual pilferage at the time of inspection, the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter requesting them to ensure that there was no occurrence of alleged pilferage of electricity and unauthorised use of power. During such inspection it was also observed that there was no electrical load connected to the meter No. 1169603, which was controlling the supply to the petitioner Goutam Roy. The respondent No. 1 addressed a letter dt. 21.2.92. The respondent No. 1 was, however, keeping a watch over the matter and upon receipt of information that the premises was again let out for certain functions on 27.2.92, a further inspection was carried out when it was observed that the proprietory seals on the service cutouts had been tampered with. The proprietory seals on the body and in the terminal plate of meter No. 1169603 controlling the supply to Sri Goutam Roy and the pressure coil links in the said meter was found disconnected so that the meter could not register any consumption. Therefore, the meter was disconnected on the same day and the matter was reported to the Alipore Police Station on the same day. The finding of the inspection and the actions taken by the Loss Control Cell of the respondent No. 1 was communicated to the petitioner by letter dt. 27.2.92. Unfortunately, owing to inadvertent transcription error the name of the consumer was mentioned as Sri Goutam Dey instead of Sri Goutam Roy in the communication to the consumer and to the Alipore Police Station. On the same day, after inspection and disconnection a letter was received by the respondent No. 1 from the Alipore School of Music and Dance. At the time of inspection on 27.2.92 by the officers of the Loss Control Cell it was found that the connected load of the consumer was 5 KW which was far in excess of sanctioned load of 0.64KW (domestic). Actual consumption of power by the petitioner was being by-passed and electricity was being stolen. Other allegations have been denied.
5. A lengthy argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner by drawing attention of the court to various decisions viz., . It is argued that without notice C.E.S.C. authority ought not to have disconnected the supply and the allegation of theft and/or pilferage cannot be decided by the C.E.S.C. authority, unless it is adjudicated by the competent authority the allegations cannot be sustained.
6. It is, however, argued on behalf of the C.E.S.C. authority that they have right to disconnect the supply even without notice and the acts done or caused to have been done by the C.E.S.C. authorities in view of the circumstances, as-disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition, are warranted in law. Attention of the court has been drawn to the decision- and also 1986(1) Calcutta High Court Notes 45.
7. A short point has arisen as to whether the petitioner has actually committed acts of theft or not. This court wanted to ascertain, when there the serious allegations made by the C.E.S.C. authorities as to pilferage of electricity not only by the petitioner but also- by several other consumers and the matters being reported to the police authorities, whether in fact, any case has been pursued or if there is any adjudication by the competent forum to find out the guilty person. Unfortunately, nothing has been produced before this court that any case has been decided by the competent forum regarding pilferage. If the petitioner has committed any act of pilferage the respondent authorities must proceed against him in accordance with law and without the decision of the competent authority the allegations simplicetor cannot reach the stage of finality. It is not appreciated by this Court as to why the meter has been removed without notice to the petitioner. If the meter has been removed without notice and without being sealed in presence of the petitioner and examined by the appropriate authority nothing can be decided finally. The allegations also remain without being proved in the proper perspective.
8. In view of the ratio of the decision (supra) there is scope for giving notice in view of the nature of the contract and in a pending suit. There are certain distinguishing features so far as terms of agreement between the petitioner and the C.E.S.C. are concerned, as would be evident from the decision . Be that as it may, this court is of the view that the matter should be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for effective adjudication, by giving opportunity to both sides, as to whether the petitioner had actually consumed more and the amount should be arrived at in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the allegations of pilferage would not be sustained unless the C.E.S.C. pursues the matter and the case is decided before a competent forum in the criminal jurisdiction. If the C.E.S.C. does not pursue the matter, the C.E.S.C. would be estopped to raise the allegation of-pilferage accordingly. With this observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
9. All parties to act on a signed copy, of the operative portion of the judgment on the usual undertaking.