Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the accused's installation works fell within the exemption granted to electric supply companies as their "own works" under the notification issued under the Indian Electricity Rules, and whether a breach of the licensing requirement under the applicable electricity rule was made out.
Analysis: The charge proceeded on the footing that installation work was done without an electrical contractor's licence. The Court examined the applicability of Rule 48 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1937, and the corresponding Rule 40A of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1922, together with the exemption notification issued for electric supply companies. It held that, even assuming the earlier rule remained operative, the notification was framed in terms broad enough to cover installation works carried out by the company at its own expense and retained as its property. The expression "their own works" was read in the context of the rule itself, not by importing the narrower definition of works connected only with supply lines. The suggested limitation that the exemption applied only to works on the company's own premises was not accepted.
Conclusion: No breach of the relevant electricity rule was established, and the acquittal was upheld.