Clubbing of electricity connections may justify higher tariff, but only after clear findings on whether premises are the same.

Where the regulatory scheme allows only one electricity connection in a premises, multiple connections found to be operating in the same premises may be clubbed and charged at the higher applicable tariff to prevent misuse and revenue loss. The consequence, however, must rest on clear factual findings supported by reliable evidence. Here, the record contained conflicting material on whether the premises were distinct or constituted one and the same premises, so the factual basis for clubbing was inadequate. The matter was therefore required to be remanded for fresh determination of that factual question before any tariff consequence could finally follow.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether electricity connections could be clubbed and higher tariff charged where two connections were alleged to be operating in the same premises; (ii) Whether the matter required remand for fresh factual findings on whether the premises were distinct or constituted one and the same premises.

Issue (i): Whether electricity connections could be clubbed and higher tariff charged where two connections were alleged to be operating in the same premises.

Analysis: The governing regulations and circular contemplated a single connection in the same premises and required clubbing where more than one connection existed in the same premises. The scheme was intended to prevent misuse of multiple meters to avoid payment of the higher tariff applicable to bulk supply and to protect the Board from revenue loss. Where the inspection report indicated that two connections were being used in a connected manner within the same premises, the Board was entitled in law to treat the connections as clubbed and recover the consequential tariff and surcharge in accordance with the regulations.

Conclusion: The principle of clubbing was applicable where more than one connection was found to be operating in the same premises.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for fresh factual findings on whether the premises were distinct or constituted one and the same premises.

Analysis: The record showed conflicting material on the physical identity of the premises and on the effect of the inspection report. The consumers relied on documents suggesting separate ownership and separate municipal recognition, while the Board relied on the inspection report and the connected records. The factual findings below were considered inadequate because the core question whether the premises were two distinct premises or one premises had not been clearly and conclusively determined. Since the outcome depended on that factual determination, a fresh decision by the competent authority was necessary.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for fresh determination of the factual question whether the premises were distinct or one and the same.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the factual issue of clubbing, with the earlier administrative consequences kept dependent on the fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the regulatory scheme requires one connection in one premises, clubbing and higher tariff may follow if multiple connections are found in the same premises, but an appellate forum must base such consequence on clear factual findings supported by reliable evidence.

---