The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent appellate authority, disposing an appeal filed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. During inspection conducted on 25-07-2007 at the premises of the petitioner, wherein the electric connection is provided, it was detected that the petitioner had tampered with the Energy Meter installed at the premises in a manner to interfere with the proper and accurate recording of consumption. It is specifically found that the wire connecting 'B-phase' of the Meter to the Circuit Board was seen broken and another wire leading from the 'Printed Circuit Board' to the Diode was also seen cut and removed. Screws of the Meter was also seen in a broken and loosened condition. Pursuant to the inspection, penalty was imposed against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,52,962/-. Aggrieved by the assessment the petitioner approached the appellate authority after depositing 50% of the amount assessed. In Ext.P5 the appeal was disposed of by rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, however after granting certain reductions in the computation of penalty.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that none of the specific grounds raised before the appellate authority was considered in its real perspective. According to the petitioner, the Meter was opened by the inspecting team after breaking the seal and the melting of the wire might have occurred due to high temperature. It is contended that, without breaking the seal and without using a special cutting plier no one can remove the wire inside Meter.
3. The allegation of non-consideration of the arguments by the appellate authority, is not true and correct. It was categorically found that damage inside the Energy Meter will not occur due to any loose contact or heating. The appellate authority found that in such case, melting of the wire will be occurred only at its terminal end near to the 'Printed Circuit Board' and not at the mid portion. The appellate authority further found that screws of the Meter cover was found loosened and hence the security seals cannot be considered as found intact. Having regard to the relevant aspects contained in the mahazer prepared at the time of inspection, the appellate authority became convinced that the illegal abstraction of electrical energy was there at the premises at the time of inspection by tampering of the Energy Meter. This court do not find any specific reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived by the appellate authority on the factual aspects, especially when contents of the mahazer revealed detection of tampering of the meter. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised arguments based on test report on the dismantled energy meter obtained after the inspection, which indicated that one of the phase was not working and the energy meter remained faulty. But it cannot be presumed from the test report that it was a case of faulty meter, because cutting and removal of two wires inside the energy meter was specifically detected. However, conclusions arrived by the final fact finding authority does not warrants interference, especially when the statutory provisions provide that order of the appellate authority shall be final, as envisaged under Section 17 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. In the result, challenge against the impugned order fails and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However considering the fact that the petitioner was bonafidely prosecuting challenges against the impugned demand in this writ petition this court is of the opinion that he can be exonerated from the liability for payment of surcharge/interest, provided the balance amount is paid within a stipulated time.
5. It is pointed out that, pursuant to an interim order issued by this court on 17-01-2008, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the entire amounts in 3 installments. Therefore it is made clear that if the entire amount has already been paid or if the petitioner makes payment of the balance outstanding out of the amount covered under Ext.P6 demand within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, he shall be exempted from the liability for payment of any interest/surcharge.
AMG True copy Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.