Gujarat High Court
Prafullaben K. Gohil vs The Executivce Engineer (O&M) on 31 July, 2014
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/17503/2005 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17503 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI SD/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
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 ? No
================================================================
PRAFULLABEN K. GOHIL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE EXECUTIVCE ENGINEER (O&M),PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. &
1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGESH JANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.MAYA DESAI for MR MD PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.
1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 31/07/2014
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/17503/2005 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.6.2005 in Appeal No.B-49/2005 preferred by the petitioner against the supplementary bill issued to the petitioner for theft of energy. The petitioner has also sought direction directing the respondents to produce MRI and other related data extracted from the meter of the petitioner.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Mrugesh Jani for the petitioner submitted that when the electric installation of the petitioner was checked, everything was found in order and except some suspicion about use of duplicate seals on Meter Terminal Cover, checking squad did not find anything so as to allege that the petitioner had committed theft of energy. Mr. Jani submitted that on the next day of checking, the petitioner was issued supplementary bill for Rs.8,80,037.83 ps. without even waiting for the laboratory test of the meter. Mr. Jani submitted that though the petitioner could not remain present in the laboratory at the time of testing of the meter, however, since the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was static meter, every data got recorded through the system of such meter and if such datas were provided to the petitioner, the petitioner could have very well satisfied the Appellate Committee that there was no question of theft of electric energy. Mr. Jani submitted that in absence of such data provided to the petitioner, the Appellate Committee was not justified in holding that the petitioner had committed theft of energy. Mr. Jani thus urged to allow the petition and quash and set aside the order made by the Appellate Committee.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Maya Desai for learned Advocate Mr. M.D. Pandya for the respondent submitted that during testing of Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/17503/2005 JUDGMENT meter in laboratory, it was clearly found that the petitioner committed theft of energy. The appellate committee therefore committed no error in holding that the petitioner has committed theft of energy by relying on laboratory test report.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the copy of the checking-sheet at Annexure-A with laboratory test report at Annexure-B as well as the order made by the Appellate Committee, it appears that when the electric installation of the petitioner was checked on 17.12.2003, the checking squad found the seals on terminal cover of the meter duplicate. The checking squad therefore, recorded in the checking-sheet that three seals were found duplicate and it was a case of theft and suggested issuance of supplementary bill for theft of energy. Accordingly, supplementary bill for Rs.8,80,037.83 ps. was issued to the petitioner.
5. It appears from the laboratory report at page 22- Annexure-D that during the testing of the meter of the petitioner, not only the seals on the meter cover body were found duplicate but on opening of the meter, it was also found that one electronic type instrument was fixed behind the meter and the same was found connected with wires of the meter. It is recorded in the laboratory test report that the internal wiring of the meter were tampered with.
6. On the basis of the above-said laboratory test report, the Appellate Committee recorded finding that the seals on the meter body cover were found duplicate, another meter seal was found tampered with and one additional electronic instrument was found fitted on the back side of PCB and addition instrument was found connected to the PCB with wires. The Appellate Committee thus came to the conclusion that the laboratory inspection has clearly established that the petitioner had committed theft of electrical Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/17503/2005 JUDGMENT energy. However, the Appellate Committee partly allowed the appeal by giving some relief as regards taking of ratio of load factor and diversity factor. Such finding cannot be disturbed unless it is pointed out that the same is not supported by any material. The petitioner has failed to make out such case.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Jani, however submitted that though the petitioner had taken specific contention before the Appellate Committee that the tariff of 1.5 as per the Electricity Act, 2003 was applicable to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner should have been issued the supplementary bill by applying tariff of 1.5 instead of 2.5. However, the Appellate Committee has not dealt with such contention raised by the petitioner.
8. The above contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the installation of the petitoner was checked on 17.12.2003 whereas the new Act, i.e. Electricity Act, 2003 was brought into force on 10.12.2004 and as held by this Court in Plasto Processors versus Gujarat Electricity Board reported in 2005(3) GLH 184, the old Act and the conditions of supply under which the supplementary bill was issued to the petitioner was to continue to operate till 10.12.2004. The old tariff applied was 2.5 times the average consumption charges for six months. Under the new Act, it was initially provided that the tariff exceeding 1.5 times the average consumption charges for six months shall not be applied for issuing supplementary bill.
9. In view of the above, the petition is required to be dismissed. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-
(C.L.SONI, J.) anvyas Page 4 of 4