MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs HAMESH MADAN

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Hamesh Madan, respondent, has Industrial Power (IP) and Industrial Light (IL) connections in his name. These connections are being used in a factory which is allegedly owned by Madan Lal Madan, father of Hamesh Madan. On 14.10.1992 Enforcement Staff of DESU conducted a surprise visit and found that the electric connections were being mis-used and the same had been sub-let. Electricity bills were therefore raised alongwith surcharge on the ground of misuse and sub-letting. The consumer, Hamesh Madan, approached District Forum by filing a complaint. The complaint was allowed and it was directed that the O.P. shall not demand surcharge on account of mis-use or sub-letting on the basis of the inspection dated 14.10.92. The O.P. was also directed to replace the meter with one month and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant. The O.P. has preferred this appeal. The view taken by the District Forum is that u/Sec. 20 inspection of the premises could be carried out only after serving a notice of not less than 24 hours and as no such notice had been served, the inspection was illegal and no bill could be raised on the basis of such an inspection. The contention of Mr. S.L. Trisal, learned Counsel for the appellant is that what is applicable to the present case is Sub-section (1) of Section 20 which does not require 24 hours notice in writing to the occupier. The contention of Mr. O.P. Kapoor, authorised representative of the respondent on the other hand is that the view taken by the District Forum is un-exceptionable and called for no interference.

SECTION 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 insofar as relevant for the present purposes reads as under:- "20. Power for licensee to enter premises and to remove fittings or other apparatus of licensee. - (1) A licensee or any person duly authorised by a licensee may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter any premises to which energy is or has been supplied by him, (or any premises or land, under, over, along, across, in or upon which the electric supply-lines or other works have been lawfully placed by him for the purposes of:- (a) (inspecting, testing, repairing or altering) the electric supply-lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of energy belonging to the licensee; or (b) ascertaining the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply; or (c) xxx xxx xxx (2) (a) xxx xx xxx (b) enter any premises to which energy is to be supplied by him, for the purpose of examining and testing the electric wires, fittings, works and apparatus for the use of energy, belonging to the consumer. (3) xxx xxx xxx"

(emphasis supplied) A careful perusal of Sub-sections 1 & 2 reveals that Sub-section (1) applies to premises to which energy is or has been supplied by the licensee. It may further be noticed that there is no requirement of serving 24 hours notice in writing to the occupier under Sub-section (1). Admittedly the premises in question fall within the ambit of Sub-section (1) as Industrial Power and Industrial Light connections were in existence prior to the surprise inspection. All that is required under Sub-section (1) is that the time of inspection etc. shall be reasonable and entry is made after informing the occupier. There is no grievance that the time selected for inspection was not reasonable or the occupier was not informed of the intention of the inspection team to enter the premises for purposes of inspection etc. We are clearly of the view that the District Forum has not construed the provisions of Section 20 correctly. We accordingly allow the appeal, set-aside the order of the District Forum. As a result the complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties. Appeal allowed.