Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer ( O & M ) vs Paras Ship Breakers Ltd & on 8 February, 2013
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( O & M )....Petitioner(s)V/SPARAS SHIP BREAKERS LTD C/SCA/7193/2011 CAV JUDGEMNT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7193 of 2011 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7196 of 2011 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================ EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ( O & M )....Petitioner(s) Versus PARAS SHIP BREAKERS LTD &
1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN YAGNIK AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 VIRAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 08/02/2013 COMMON CAV JUDGEMNT
1. Rule.
Learned advocate Mr. V.K. Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned AGP Mr. Rohan Yagnik waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner Executive Engineer (O & M), Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., who has filed all these petitions and it appears from the prayers sought in these petitions that the issues involved in these matters are identical and the matters are interconnected between the very parties. Therefore, the matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Looking to the facts of the cases, these are cases wherein though numbers of checking are carried out by the petitioner - Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., a Distribution Licensee, ignoring all such checkings, it seems that the respondent consumer has continued to violate the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Act, 2003, and continued to use electricity unauthorisedly. Explanation of unauthorised use of electricity is provided in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as under :
Explanation For the purposes of this section,-
(a) assessing officer means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;
(b) unauthorised use of electricity means the usage of electricity
-
(i) by an artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or lilcensee; or
(iii) through a tampered meter; or
(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised
4. This amounts to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the The Electricity Act, 2003. This act of the respondent consumer appears to be with a view to avoid payment of dues on the premises which are acquired by it since if the respondent would apply for regular connection at the two plots where it was found to be used electricity, it would have to clear the outstanding dues on the said premises. Therefore, the respondent consumer who is owner of plot Nos. 5, 2/A and 4 has indulged in use of electricity unauthorisedly/resale of electricity by unauthorisedly supplying electricity from plot No.5 to plot Nos.2/1 and plot No.4 with the help of underground cable which is not authorised. It seems from the record that at the relevant time in the case of M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills, the outstanding amount is to the tune of Rs.79.30 Lacs approximately, whereas in the case of M/s. Paras Ship Breakers, the outstanding amount is to the tune of Rs.22.92 Lac approximately. If the respondent No.1 has to use the entire load which was found into other premises viz. M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills and M/s. Paras Ship Breakers, the total load would be more than its contracted load. Therefore, it has to ask for additional load. Therefore, its billing will be on higher tariff. Therefore, with a dishonest intention, the respondent No.1 consumer has connected its connection with two other premises i.e. M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills and M/s. Paras Ship Breakers.
5. The Electrical Inspector, after going through the checking sheet has come the conclusion that it is unauthorised use of electricity. Not only that the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.367 of 2010 also held that it amounts to unauthoized use of electricity. The matters which have been decided fresh by the Chief Electrical Inspector, therefore, also I am of the opinion that action of the respondent consumer amounts to unauthorised use of electricity. So far as the findings qua unauthorised use is concerned, the respondent has remained silent and not argued that it was authorised to use electricity. Therefore, looking to all the checking sheets and the findings recorded therein, I come to the conclusion that these are cases of unauthorised use of electricity. The respondent consumer has with a view not to make payment of the outstanding amount in plot Nos.2/A and plot No.4 supplied electricity from its connection in plot No.5 by laying underground cable and continued to use electricity in the said plots uauthorisedly, when the load was sanctioned by the petitioner Distribution Licensee in plot No.5 as per the power boundary, despite several checkings and issuance of supplementary bills. Therefore, I am also in agreement with the findings of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the earlier observation of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.367 of 2010 which has also come to the conclusion that these are cases of unauthorised use of electricity.
The respondent No.1 contested the matters by filing affidavit in replies.
The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has not filed any reply. The learned AGP has contended the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector is just and proper.
Now, it is necessary to refer the facts of the cases in brief :
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7196 of 2011 :
6. The premises of the respondent was checked by the petitioner on 10.9.2009 and it was found that the respondent No.1 was using electricity unauthorisedly by laying underground cable from plot No.5 to plot Nos.2/B and 4 in the adjoining plots where earlier the petitioner had released connections to M/s. Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. and M/s. Khodiyar Roiling Mills which are permanently disconnected and where there is arrears of huge outstanding amount. At the time making application for connection power boundary is required to be shown wherein point of supply and boundary where the consumer is entitled to use electricity is mentioned and beyond that the consumer cannot use electricity or supply electricity to anyone else. The respondent No.1 was supplying electricity to these two plots by laying underground cables which amounts to unauthorised use of electricity. Sketch is shown at page No.25 of the petition. It has also observed in the Rozkam that the aforesaid two units were also consumers of the petitioner and their connections have been permanently disconnected. The respondent No.1 was found to be using electricity in these plots. It is required to be noted that in both the aforesaid connections, there were outstanding dues of the respondent. In the case of M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills, the outstanding amount is to the tune of Rs.79.30 Lacs approximately, whereas in the case of M/s. Paras Ship Breakers, the outstanding amount is to the tune of Rs.22.92 Lacs approximately. The entire load which was found connected is mentioned in the checking sheet. The respondent No.1 was therefore booked for resale of electricity/unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisional bill for Rs.2,20,09,862.38 Ps. was issued on 25.9.2009. The respondent No.1 was also called upon to submit its objections, if any to the bill within seven days to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.9.2009. The respondent consumer, thereafter, instead of filing objections, the respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.11009 of 2009 before this Court, which was heard with other group of matters being Special Civil Application Nos.16707 of 2007, 6665 of 2008 and 12 of 2009 and Letters Patent Appeal No.367 of 2010 between the very parties were heard together by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon ble Chief Justice Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi) and vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2010, this Court dismissed the Special Civil Application No.11009 of 2009 filed by the respondent No.1 leaving it open for the respondent No.1 to explore possibility to approach the Appellate Authority. Division Bench confirmed that it is unauthorised use of electricity.
7. The aforesaid judgment of this Court was challenged by the respondent No.1 consumer before the Hon ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14310 of 2010. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the order dated 13.5.2010 observed that in regard to the respondent s claim for Rs.2,20,09,862/-, the High Court has reserved liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal .
8. It is pertinent to note here that neither the High Court nor the Hon ble Supreme Court have given liberty to the respondent No.1 or direction to the Appellate Authority to forgo/waive the pre-condition under Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for deposit of 50% amount of the bill.
Section 127(2) is reproduced hereunder:
127(2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-section(1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to (half of the assessment amount) is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal.
9. The language used in Section 127(2) is clear that unless 50% amount of the bill is deposited, no appeal shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority.
10. The petitioner Distribution Licensee had raised objections before the respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal without pre-deposit of the requisite amount. Though it was specifically brought to the notice of the Chief Electrical Inspector, he has entertained the Appeal and decided in on merits. Therefore, the Chief Electrical Inspector has exceeded his jurisdiction and committed material irregularity in deciding this case. The Chief Electrical Inspector had no authority to decide the matter on merits without the pre-deposit of the statutory amount. The action of the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the appeal ignoring the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of The Electricity Supply Code is erroneous, illegal and without authority. The Chief Electrical Inspector has to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code, which is statutory in nature. The Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 has exceeded jurisdiction and acted against the statutory provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code framed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. These provisions are statutory in nature and the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to follow the same. Even if the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to decide the matter on merits, the reasoning given by the Chief Electrical Inspector on merits, I find that the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector is against the provisions of the Supply Code. The Chief Electrical Inspector has observed in his order on the basis of connected load in authorised premises and presuming 8 hours consumption per day on the basis of his own interpretation deviated from the Rules and Regulations and Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code for the manner of assessment in case of unauthorised use of electricity. The formula provided under the Supply Code does not allow for bifurcating and excluding units as is done by the learned Appellate Authority. There is no such Rules and Regulations which empower the learned Appellate Authority to calculate the bill in the manner in which it is done by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had produced before the Chief Electrical Inspector entire statistical data of the consumer for the period from January, 2006 to April, 2010 to show the maximum demand, total units consumed, units recorded in the furnace meter and the percentage of the units recorded in the furnace meter out of total consumption. The data shows that almost 98% of the total consumption was recorded in the furnace meter which is technically not possible looking to the load of the furnace and the total load connected by the respondent No.1. Further, the meter which was installed at the furnace was not approved by the petitioner nor provided by the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be looked into and therefore, the question of giving any deduction on the basis of the reading of the said meter does not arise. The Chief Electrical Inspector, however came out with novice ground that the consumer operated the induction furnace and its auxiliary load in the area for which the supply was authorised and holding that it seems reasonable to take that load into account for determining the authorized usage of electricity by the consumer and deducting the same from the total consumption for arriving at the quantum unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored that no such methodology for arriving at the quantum of unauthorised usage is permissible under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code.
11. The Chief Electrical Inspector has, partly relied on the provisions of the Supply Code Clause 7.2.4 regarding period and multiplication for calculating bill for unauthorised use of electricity, but, has ignored the provisions of Supply Code to work out the units for unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has partly relied on the Notification of 2005 and he has partly relied on the Notification of 2006. However, looking to the facts of the case, and looking to the date of checking, he was required to consider the notification for assessment of the bill is required to be considered as per the Supply Code and the criteria for calculation of the bill. Looking to the date of checking, he has to apply the formula which is notified by the GERC from time to time.
12. The Chief Electrical Inspector has not given any provisions of law, which empowers him to hold that the amount paid by the consumer towards the regular bills towards unauthorised consumption during this period shall be deducted from the amount of the bill.
13. Thus, the Chief Electrical Inspector has erred in reducing the bill from Rs.2,20,09,682.38 Ps. to Rs.37,08,831.16 Ps.
14. I have heard learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina along with learned advocate Mr. Viral Shah. I have also heard Ms. L.K. Bhaya, advocate for the petitioner, in all these petitions as also learned AGP Mr. Rohan Yagnik for the respondent No.2.
15. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has not filed any reply. Learned AGP has contended that the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector is just and proper.
16. The respondent No.1 has filed reply and only raised the objection that Special Leave Petition has been admitted before the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court has no authority to decide this issue. Except supporting the decision of the Electrical Inspector, without giving any reasons, the respondent No.1 has argued only to the extent that since Special Leave Petition is admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
17. In response to the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has made submission that after the order of the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and therefore, writ petition under Article 226 is the only remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner is not required to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, there is no order of the Hon ble Supreme Court that against the order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner should approach the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition.
18. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector had no authority to waive the statutory condition of pre-deposit of 50% amount of the bill before entertaining the appeal. I am, therefore, convinced that the Chief Electrical Inspector has violated the statutory Rules. He has no authority to waive the condition of depositing 50% amount of the bill and without such amount being deposited, he ought not to have entertained the Appeal. Therefore, said action of the Chief Electrical Inspector is required to be deprecated.
19. Further, this Court has also examined the matter on merits and it is clear that the Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored the Regulations and decided the matter on novice formula. I could not lay my hand on any provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Electricity Supply Code which empowers the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the issue considering the load which is in authorized area and the load which is in unauthorized area. Such reasoning is absurdity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector is required to be quashed and set aside even on merits of the case.
20. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386. The facts of the said case are not similar to the facts of this case. It is clear from the facts of the said case that after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the respondent had filed Review petition. The High Court after dismissal of Special Leave Petition, entertained the Review Petition which was filed with 221 days delay and condoned the delay and reviewed the order when the Hon ble Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition and subsequent to that the High Court had entertained the review petition. Therefore, the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of the present case. In this case, no decision has been rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
21. The respondent No.1 has also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42. This is a case where the principle of Res Judicata or principle of analogus thereto are not applicable in criminal proceedings till the Courts are bound by doctrine of judicial discipline regards to the hierarchal system prevailing in the country. Finding of higher courts or coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining bail application when at a later stage the same has been rejected earlier. Therefore, from these facts, it is clear that it is in respect of bail application which is earlier rejected by the Court. Therefore, the ratio of this decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
22. In the result, the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 herein passed by the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 25.9.2009 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs.2,20,09,862.38Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
SPECIAL CIVL APPLICATION No.7195 of 2011:
23. In this case, checking was carried out on 27/28.2.2008 by the checking squad of the petitioner and it was found that the respondent No.1 reselling electricity unauthoirsedly by laying underground cable from plot No.5 to plot Nos.2B and plot No.4 in the adjoining plots where earlier the petitioner had released connections to M/s. Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. and M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills which are permanently disconnected and where there is arrears of huge outstanding amount. At the time of making application for connection power boundary is required to be shown wherein point of supply and the boundary where the consumer is entitled to use electricity is mentioned and beyond that the consumer cannot use electricity or supply electricity to anyone else. The respondent No.1 was supplying electricity to these two plots by laying underground cables which amounts to unauthorised use of electricity. It has also been observed in the Rozkam that the aforesaid two units were also consumers of the petitioner and their connections have been permanently disconnected. The respondent No.1 was therefore, booked for resale of electricity/unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and provisional bill for Rs.1,03,33,886.59Ps. was issued on 28.2.2008. Thereafter final bill was issued to the respondent No.1 on 2.6.2008 for Rs.1,03,33,886.59Ps. The respondent No.1 preferred appeal to the Electrical Inspector under Section 127 of the Act. The respondent No.2 on 25.3.2010 passed order that since identical matters being Special Civil Application Nos.9638 of 2007 and 16707 of 2007 and other matters are pending before this Court for final decision, the above appeal shall be disposed of according to the final decision of this Court and till then status-quo should be maintained. Thereafter, further order was passed by the respondent No.2 on 11.5.2010 that the Hon ble High Court has disposed of Special Civil Application No.16707 of 2007 vide its order dated 28.4.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.367 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.11009 of 2009. As the order of this office has clearly mentioned to follow the High Court s order the respondent company is at liberty to take necessary actions accordingly.
24. Therefore, it means that the Electrical Inspector has come to the conclusion that now nothing is required to be done in view of the fact that this Court has decided that it amounts to unauthorized use of electricity and direction to the petitioner to take necessary action is for recovery of the bill. Against this order of the Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.1 has not preferred any petition before this Court nor was any matter pending either before this Court or the Hon ble Supreme Court even though when there was no direction from any of the Courts and without there being any application of the respondent No.1, quite surprisingly the respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has suo motu taken up the matter with the groups of maters of the respondent No.1 and decided it afresh and reduced the bill from Rs.1,03,33,846.59Ps. to Rs.15,91,941.32 Ps.
25. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Chief Electrical Inspector has no authority to review his own judgment. The Chief Electrical Inspector has also committed material irregularity in reviewing his own decision without any direction from any of the courts and he has on his own reviewed his decision. Looking to the appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector as Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003, he has no power to review his own decision. Therefore, on this ground only the petition is required to be allowed and the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector is required to be quashed and set aside.
26. The action of the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the Appeal ignoring the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code is erroneous, illegal and without authority. The Chief Electrical Inspector has to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code which is statutory in nature. The Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 has exceeded jurisdiction and acted against the statutory provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code framed by Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. These provisions are statutory in nature and the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to follow the same. Even if the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to decide the matter on merits, the reasoning given by the Chief Electrical Inspector is against the provisions of Supply Code. The Chief Electrical Inspector has observed in his order on the basis of connected load in authorized premises and presuming 8 hours consumption per day on the basis of his own interpretation deviated from the Rules and Regulations and Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code for the manner of assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity. The formula provided under the Supply Code does not allow bifurcating and excluding units as is done by the Appellate Authority. There are no such Rules and Regulations which empower the Appellate Authority to calculate the bill in the manner in which it is done by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had produced before the Chief Electrical Inspector entire statistical data of the consumer for the period from January, 2006 to April, 2010 to show the maximum demand, total units consumed, units recorded in the furnace meter and the percentage of units recorded in the furnace out of total consumption. The data shows that almost 98% of total consumption was recorded in the furnace meter which is technically not possible looking to the load of the furnace and the total load connected by the respondent No.1. Further, the meter which was installed at the furnace was not approved by the petitioner nor provided by the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be looked into and therefore, the question of giving any deduction on the basis of the reading of the said meter does not arise. The Chief Electrical Inspector however, came out with novice ground that the consumer operated the induction furnace and its auxiliary load in the area for which the supply was authorized and holding that it seems reasonable to take that load into account for determining the authorised usage of electricity by the consumer and deducting the same from the total consumption for arriving at the unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored that no such methodology for arriving at the quantum of unauthorised usage is permissible under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code.
27. The Chief Electrical Inspector has, partly relied on the provisions of the Supply Code Clause 7.2.4 regarding period and multiplication for calculating bill for unauthorized use of electricity, but, has ignored the provisions of Supply Code to work out the units for unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has partly relied on the Notification of 2005 and partly he has relied on the Notification of 2006. However, looking to the facts of the case, and looking to the date of checking he was required to consider the notification for assessment of the bill is required to be considered as per the Supply Code and the criteria for calculation of the bill. Looking to the date of checking, he has to apply the formula which is notified by the GERC from time to time.
28. The Chief Electrical Inspector has not given any provisions of law which empowers him to hold that the amount paid by the consumer towards the regular bills towards unauthorised consumption during this period shall be deducted from the amount of the bill.
29. Further, this Court has also examined the matter on merits and it is clear that the Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored the Regulations and decided the matter on novice formula. I could not lay my hand on any provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Electricity Supply Code which empowers the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the issue considering the load which is in authorised area and the load which is in unauthorised area. Such reasoning is absurdity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector is required to be quashed and set aside even on merits of the case.
30. I have heard learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina along with advocate Mr. Viral Shah. I have also heard Ms. L.K. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner in all these petitions as also learned AGP for respondent No.2.
31. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has not filed any reply. The learned AGP has contended that the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector is just and proper.
32. The respondent No.1 has filed reply and only raised objection that Special Leave Petition has been admitted before the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court has no authority to decide this issue. Except supporting the decision of the Electrical Inspector, without giving any reasons, the respondent No.1 has argued only to the extent that since Special Leave Petition is admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
33. In response to the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has made submission that after the order of the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and therefore, writ petition under Article 226 is the only remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner is not required to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, there is no order of the Hon ble Supreme Court that against the order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner should approach the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition.
34. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386. The facts of the said case are not similar to the facts of this case. It is clear from the facts of the said case that after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the respondent had filed Review petition. The High Court after dismissal of Special Leave Petition, entertained the Review Petition which was filed with 221 days delay and condoned the delay and reviewed the order when the Hon ble Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition and subsequent to that the High Court had entertained the review petition. Therefore, the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of the present case. In this case, no decision has been rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
35. The respondent No.1 has also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42. This is a case where the principle of Res Judicata or principle of analogus thereto are not applicable in criminal proceedings till the Courts are bound by doctrine of judicial discipline regards to the hierarchal system prevailing in the country. Finding of higher courts or coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining bail application when at a later stage the same has been rejected earlier. Therefore, from these facts, it is clear that it is in respect of bail application which is earlier rejected by the Court. Therefore, the ratio of this decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
36. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has erred in reducing the bill from Rs.1,03,33,886.59Ps. to Rs.15,91,941.32 Ps.
37. In the result, the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 herein passed by the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 2.6.2008 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs1,03,33,886.59Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7194 of 2011 :
38. In this case, checking was carried out on 26/27.10.2006 by the checking squad of the petitioner and it was found that the respondent No.1 reselling electricity unauthoirsedly by laying underground cable from plot No.5 to plot Nos.2B and plot No.4 in the adjoining plots where earlier the petitioner had released connections to M/s. Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. and M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills which are permanently disconnected and where there is arrears of huge outstanding amount. At the time of making application for connection power boundary is required to be shown wherein point of supply and the boundary where the consumer is entitled to use electricity is mentioned and beyond that the consumer cannot use electricity or supply electricity to anyone else. The respondent No.1 was, therefore, booked for resale of electricity/unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisional bill for Rs.64,46,556.02Ps. was issued on 27.10.2006. The respondent No.1 was also called upon to submit objections, if any to the bill within seven days to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.10.2006. Thereafter final bill was issued to the respondent No.1 on 25.1.2007 for Rs.64,46,556.02Ps.
39. The respondent No.1 preferred appeal to the Electrical Inspector under Section 127 of the Act. It was specifically brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority that as per the Government of Gujarat Notification No.GU-2007-133-ELA-1103-9539-K dated 1.9.2007 the jurisdiction to decide the appeal has been specifically vested in the Authority named therein. Therefore, from the date of issuance of the aforesaid Notification only, the Authority named therein are entitled to exercise the jurisdiction as Appellate Authority for the cases involving amount if the assessment exceeds Rs.10.00 Lacs, it is within the competence of Chief Electrical Inspector. Therefore, as per the Notification of the Government of Gujarat the Appellate Authority under Section 127 for the sum exceeding Rs.10.00 Lacs the Chief Electrical Inspector only will have jurisdiction to decide the appeal. However, the Appellate Authority without considering the said objection passed order and quashed and set aside the bill issued by the petitioner. The said decision of the Electrical Inspector was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.12 of 2009.
40. The aforesaid petition and other group of matters being Special Civil Application Nos.6665 of 2008, 16707 of 2007, 11009 of 2009 and Letters Patent Appeal No.367 of 2010 between the very parties were heard together by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon ble Chief Justice Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi) and vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2010, the Division Bench allowed the petition being Special Civil Application No.12 of 2009.
41. The Division Bench of this Court confirmed that it is unauthorised use of electricity. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 28.4.2010 observed as under:
With respect to the order dated 5.6.2008 by the Electrical Inspector, we find that by notification dated 1.9.2007, the Government superseded its earlier notification dated 10.1.2005 and in case of appeals involving amount of above Rs. 10 lakhs, designated Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector as the Appellate Authority. In view of the said notification, the Electrical Inspector lost the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which was admittedly involving stakes of more than Rs. 10 lakh. This in our view was a procedural change and would apply to all pending appeals. Electrical Inspector therefore, ought not to have heard Appeal No.11/2007 of the consumer on merits thereafter. In fact, the Electricity Company raised its written objections in this regard. Such objection was however turned down by the Electrical Inspector by order dated 8.4.2008 observing that the said Government notification would not apply to appeals which were already filed previously. We find that the Electrical Inspector committed a serious error in proceeding with the appeal even after he was divested of pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the same. Contention of the counsel for the consumer was that the said order dated 8.4.2008 not having been challenged by the Electricity Company, said issue cannot be raised in the present proceedings. Said contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, order dated 8.4.2008, was an interlocutory order and eventually merged in the final order disposing of the appeal. Secondly, the issue goes to the root of the matter namely, to the very jurisdiction of the appellate authority to decide the appeal. On this additional ground also the appellate order is required to be quashed. Ordinarily, we would have permitted the consumer to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority. However, in view of our conclusion in this order, issue of unauthorized use of electricity gets finally decided in this litigation. No useful purpose would therefore, be served in remanding the appeal for fresh consideration.
42. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein before the Hon ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14310 of 2010. The Hon ble Supreme Court on 13.5.2010 passed the order observing in respect of this case In regard to Special Civil Application No.12/2009 where the High Court has held that the Electrical Inspector was not the appellate Authority, issue notice. Interim direction permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent Authority in regard to the order dated 5.6.2008. In all other respects the order of the High Court is upheld.
43. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector decided the matter vide order dated 16.3.2011 and reduced the bill from Rs.64,46,556.02Ps. to Rs.3,50,998.31Ps.
44. The action of the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the Appeal ignoring the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code is erroneous, illegal and without authority. The Chief Electrical Inspector has to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code which is statutory in nature. The Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 has exceeded jurisdiction and acted against the statutory provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code framed by Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. These provisions are statutory in nature and the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to follow the same. Even if the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to decide the matter on merits, the reasoning given by the Chief Electrical Inspector is against the provisions of Supply Code. The Chief Electrical Inspector has observed in his order on the basis of connected load in authorized premises and presuming 8 hours consumption per day on the basis of his own interpretation deviated from the Rules and Regulations and Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code for the manner of assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity. The formula provided under the Supply Code does not allow bifurcating and excluding units as is done by the Appellate Authority. There is no such Rules and Regulations which empower the Appellate Authority to calculate the bill in the manner in which it is done by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had produced before the Chief Electrical Inspector entire statistical data of the consumer for the period from January, 2006 to April, 2010 to show the maximum demand, total units consumed, units recorded in the furnace meter and percentage of units recorded in the furnace meter out of total consumption. The data shows that almost 98% of total consumption was recorded in the furnace meter which is technically not possible looking to the load of the furnace and the total load connected by the respondent No.1. Further, the meter which was installed at the furnace was not approved by the petitioner nor provided by the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be looked into and therefore, the question of giving any deduction on the basis of the reading of the said meter does not arise.
The Chief Electrical Inspector however, came out with novice ground that the consumer operated the induction furnace and its auxiliary load in the area for which the supply was authorized and holding that it seems reasonable to take that load into account for determining the authorised usage of electricity by the consumer and deducting the same from the total consumption for arriving at the unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored that no such methodology for arriving at the quantum of unauthorised usage is permissible under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code.
45. The Chief Electrical Inspector has, partly relied on the provisions of the Supply Code Clause 7.2.4 regarding period and multiplication for calculating bill for unauthorized use of electricity, but, has ignored the provisions of Supply Code to work out the units for unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has partly relied on the Notification of 2005 and partly he has relied on the Notification of 2006. However, looking to the facts of the case, and looking to the date of checking he was required to consider the notification for assessment of the bill is required to be considered as per the Supply Code and the criteria for calculation of the bill. Looking to the date of checking, he has to apply the formula which is notified by the GERC from time to time.
46. The Chief Electrical Inspector has not given any provisions of law which empowers him to hold that the amount paid by the consumer towards the regular bills towards unauthorised consumption during this period shall be deducted from the amount of the bill.
47. Further, this Court has also examined the matter on merits and it is clear that the Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored the Regulations and decided the matter on novice formula. I could not lay my hand on any provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Electricity Supply Code which empowers the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the issue considering the load which is in authorised area and the load which is in unauthorised area. Such reasoning is absurdity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector is required to be quashed and set aside even on merits of the case.
48. I have heard learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina along with advocate Mr. Viral Shah. I have also heard Ms. L.K. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner in all these petitions as also learned AGP for respondent No.2.
49. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has not filed any reply. The learned AGP has contended that the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector is just and proper.
50. The respondent No.1 has filed reply and only raised objection that Special Leave Petition has been admitted before the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court has no authority to decide this issue. Except supporting the decision of the Electrical Inspector, without giving any reasons, the respondent No.1 has argued only to the extent that since Special Leave Petition is admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
51. In response to the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has made submission that after the order of the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and therefore, writ petition under Article 226 is the only remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner is not required to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, there is no order of the Hon ble Supreme Court that against the order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner should approach the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition.
52. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386. The facts of the said case are not similar to the facts of this case. It is clear from the facts of the said case that after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the respondent had filed Review petition. The High Court after dismissal of Special Leave Petition, entertained the Review Petition which was filed with 221 days delay and condoned the delay and reviewed the order when the Hon ble Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition and subsequent to that the High Court had entertained the review petition. Therefore, the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of the present case. In this case, no decision has been rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
53. The respondent No.1 has also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42. This is a case where the principle of Res Judicata or principle of analogus thereto are not applicable in criminal proceedings till the Courts are bound by doctrine of judicial discipline regards to the hierarchal system prevailing in the country. Finding of higher courts or coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining bail application when at a later stage the same has been rejected earlier. Therefore, from these facts, it is clear that it is in respect of bail application which is earlier rejected by the Court. Therefore, the ratio of this decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
54. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has erred in reducing the bill from Rs.64,46,556.02Ps. to Rs.3,50,998.31 Ps.
55. In the result, the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 herein passed by the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 25.1.2007 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs. 64,46,556.02Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7193 of 2011 :
56. In this case, checking was carried out on 15.4.2006 by the checking squad of the petitioner and it was found that the respondent No.1 reselling electricity unauthoirsedly by laying underground cable from plot No.5 to plot Nos.2B and plot No.4 in the adjoining plots where earlier the petitioner had released connections to M/s. Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. and M/s. Khodiyar Rolling Mills which are permanently disconnected and where there is arrears of huge outstanding amount. At the time of making application for connection power boundary is required to be shown wherein point of supply and the boundary where the consumer is entitled to use electricity is mentioned and beyond that the consumer cannot use electricity or supply electricity to anyone else. The respondent No.1 was supplying electricity to these two plots by laying underground cables which amount to unauthorised use of electricity. It has also been observed in the Rozkam that the aforesaid two units were also consumers of the petitioner and their connection have been permanently disconnected. The respondent No.1 was therefore, booked for resale of electricity/unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and provisional bill for Rs.64,03,943.67Ps. was issued on 27.4.2006. Thereafter final bill was issued to the respondent No.1 on 14.6.2006 for Rs.64,08,248.07Ps.
57. The respondent No.1 preferred appeal to the Electrical Inspector under Section 127 of the Act. The Electrical Inspector partially set aside the bill and directed the petitioner to revise the bill. The said decision of the Electrical Inspector was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No.6665 of 2008 and it was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing Special Civil Application No.16707 of 2007. The aforesaid petition along with other matters between the very parties were heard together by the Division Bench of this court (Coram : Hon ble Chief Justice Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) and vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2010 the Division Bench disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No.367 of 2010, Special Civil Application No.6665 of 2008, 16707 of 2007, 12 of 2009 and 11009 of 2009 with regard to this, the Division Bench has observed as under :
14.We may recall that in Special Civil Application No. 16707/2007 the consumer has challenged order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Electrical Inspector. Same order to the extent it is adverse to the Company has been challenged in Special Civil Application No.6665/2008. We find that the Electrical Inspector, having accepted the case of unauthorized use of electricity by the consumer, interfered with the disputed bill on other grounds which were not tenable. The Electrical Inspector relied on the meter installed by the consumer on its furnace to hold that such consumption should be excluded from consideration of unauthorized consumption.
We find that the approach of the Electrical Inspector was wholly incorrect. It is undisputed that the meter installed on the furnace was purchased by the consumer and was not supplied by the Company. Reading recorded by such a meter cannot form the basis for segregating the consumption of electricity.
The Company in its petition has taken following ground in this respect:
(e) The Learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that only the energy meter(TVM) installed by the petitioner is considered to be standard apparatus to measure energy because this apparatus is checked from time to time in the premises of the consumers by the officials of the petitioner. No other meter present in the premises of the consumer is taken in consideration except meter installed by the petitioner because the meter installed other than the petitioner are purchased and installed by the consumer themselves for getting various benefits like electricity duty exemption, D.G. Set, Office Lighting, recording, factory lighting recording, etc. The reading of furnace meter considered by the learned Appellate Authority is totally misleading since the said furnace meter is not tested or sealed by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 had failed to produce any sealing certificate in respect of the said furnace meter.
58. No reply has been filed refuting the averments. Even otherwise factual aspects are not in dispute. We uphold the said objection, conclude that interference by the Electrical Inspector in this case was uncalled for. The order is therefore,quashed.
59. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein before the Hon ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14310 of 2010. The Hon ble Supreme Court on 13.5.2010 (P.137) regarding this case, passed the following order:
In regard to the first claim of respondent dated 14.6.2006, the effect of the High Court order is that the Electrical Inspector will have to recalculate the amount due.
60. Therefore, the effect of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court is that the Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 had to calculate the amount of the bill which was required to be paid by the respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector, in utter disregard to the order of the Apex Court, decided the matter afresh and reduced the bill from Rs.64,08,248.07Ps. to Rs.4,83,005.69Ps. Thus, the respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and without any direction from the Hon ble Supreme Court once again decided the matter without authority of law.
61. Therefore, the decision of the respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition is required to be allowed on this ground only.
62. The action of the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the Appeal ignoring the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code is erroneous, illegal and without authority. The Chief Electrical Inspector has to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code which is statutory in nature. The Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 has exceeded jurisdiction and acted against the statutory provisions of Clause 7.2.4 of the Electricity Supply Code framed by Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. These provisions are statutory in nature and the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to follow the same. Even if the Chief Electrical Inspector was required to decide the matter on merits, the reasoning given by the Chief Electrical Inspector is against the provisions of Supply Code. The Chief Electrical Inspector has observed in his order on the basis of connected load in authorized premises and presuming 8 hours consumption per day on the basis of his own interpretation deviated from the Rules and Regulations and Clause 7.2.4 of the Supply Code for the manner of assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity. The formula provided under the Supply Code does not allow bifurcating and excluding units as is done by the Appellate Authority. There is no such Rules and Regulations which empower the Appellate Authority to calculate the bill in the manner in which it is done by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had produced before the Chief Electrical Inspector entire statistical data of the consumer for the period from January, 2006 to April, 2010 to show the maximum demand, total units consumed, units recorded in the furnace meter and percentage of units recorded in the furnace meter, out of total consumption. The data shows that almost 98% of total consumption was recorded in the furnace meter which is technically not possible looking to the load of the furnace and the total load connected by the respondent No.1. Further, the meter which was installed at the furnace was not approved by the petitioner nor provided by the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be looked into and therefore, the question of giving any deduction on the basis of the reading of the said meter does not arise. The Chief Electrical Inspector however, came out with novice ground that the consumer operated the induction furnace and its auxiliary load in the area for which the supply was authorized and holding that it seems reasonable to take that load into account for determining the authorised usage of electricity by the consumer and deducting the same from the total consumption for arriving at the unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored that no such methodology for arriving at the quantum of unauthorised usage is permissible under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code.
63. The Chief Electrical Inspector has, partly relied on the provisions of the Supply Code Clause 7.2.4 regarding period and multiplication for calculating bill for unauthorized use of electricity, but, has ignored the provisions of Supply Code to work out the units for unauthorised use of electricity. The Chief Electrical Inspector has partly relied on the Notification of 2005 and partly he has relied on the Notification of 2006. However, looking to the facts of the case, and looking to the date of checking he was required to consider the notification for assessment of the bill is required to be considered as per the Supply Code and the criteria for calculation of the bill. Looking to the date of checking he has to apply the formula which is notified by the GERC from time to time.
64. The Chief Electrical Inspector has not given any provisions of law which empowers him to hold that the amount paid by the consumer towards the regular bills towards unauthorised consumption during this period shall be deducted from the amount of the bill.
65. Further, this Court has also examined the matter on merits and it is clear that the Chief Electrical Inspector has ignored the Regulations and decided the matter on novice formula. I could not lay my hand on any provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Electricity Supply Code which empowers the Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the issue considering the load which is in authorised area and the load which is in unauthorised area. Such reasoning is absurdity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector is required to be quashed and set aside even on merits of the case.
66. I have heard learned senior advocate Mr. P.C. Kavina along with advocate Mr. Viral Shah. I have also heard Ms. L.K. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner in all these petitions as also learned AGP for respondent No.2.
67. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has not filed any reply. The learned AGP has contended that the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector is just and proper.
68. The respondent No.1 has filed reply and only raised objection that Special Leave Petition has been admitted before the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court has no authority to decide this issue. Except supporting the decision of the Electrical Inspector, without giving any reasons, the respondent No.1 has argued only to the extent that since Special Leave Petition is admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
69. In response to the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has made submission that after the order of the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and therefore, writ petition under Article 226 is the only remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner is not required to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, there is no order of the Hon ble Supreme Court that against the order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner should approach the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition.
70. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386. The facts of the said case are not similar to the facts of this case. It is clear from the facts of the said case that after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the respondent had filed Review petition. The High Court after dismissal of Special Leave Petition, entertained the Review Petition which was filed with 221 days delay and condoned the delay and reviewed the order when the Hon ble Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition and subsequent to that the High Court had entertained the review petition. Therefore, the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of the present case. In this case, no decision has been rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
71. The respondent No.1 has also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42. This is a case where the principle of Res Judicata or principle of analogus thereto are not applicable in criminal proceedings till the Courts are bound by doctrine of judicial discipline regards to the hierarchal system prevailing in the country. Finding of higher courts or coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining bail application when at a later stage the same has been rejected earlier. Therefore, from these facts, it is clear that it is in respect of bail application which is earlier rejected by the Court. Therefore, the ratio of this decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
72. The respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector has erred in reducing the bill from Rs.64,08,248.07Ps. to Rs.4,83,005.69 Ps.
73. In the result, the decision of Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.2 herein passed by the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 14.6.2006 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs.64,08,248.07Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
74. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the respondent No.2 Chief Electrical Inspector in all the aforesaid cases are quashed and set aside and the bills issued by the petitioner are confirmed.
75. In the result, all the proceedings are disposed of in following terms :
(1) Special Civil Application No.7196 of 2011 is hereby allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhiangar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 25.9.2009 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs.2,20,09,862.38Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
(2) Special Civil Application No.7195 of 2011 is hereby allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 2.6.2008 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs.1,03,33,846.59Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
(3) Special Civil Application No.7194 of 2011 is hereby allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 25.1.2007 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs.64,46,556.02Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
(4) Special Civil Application No.7193 of 2011 is hereby allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar vide No.CEI/T2/6788 dated 16.3.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the bill dated 14.6.2006 issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for Rs.64,08,248.07Ps. is hereby held to be legal and valid.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. The petitions stand disposed of.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS Page 42 of 42