Gujarat High Court
Ramanlal Laxmichand Nagar (Kandoi) vs Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd on 28 March, 2013
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
RAMANLAL LAXMICHAND NAGAR (KANDOI)....Petitioner(s)V/SUTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. (UGVCL) C/SCA/8912/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8912 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================= 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 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 ? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ============================================= RAMANLAL LAXMICHAND NAGAR (KANDOI)....Petitioner(s) Versus UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. (UGVCL) & 1....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR YASH JOSHI for MR NIRAV C THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SN SINHA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 28/03/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner consumer challenging the impugned order dated 28.04.2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the Appellate Committee of the Gujarat Electricity Board, by which the learned Appellate Committee has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein consumer and has modified and reduced the supplementary bill issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board from Rs.91,826.37 ps. to Rs.76,800/- only.
[2.0] That the petitioner herein was the consumer of the Gujarat Electricity Board with electric connection under the category of Commercial Lighting bearing No.CL-26812 00366/2 having contract load of 3 KW at village Chiloda. That there was a raid by the raiding party on 04.11.2003 and it was found that the MMB seal was tampered and the meter glass was found once opened and the same was thereafter refixed with araldite. A necessary panchnama was prepared by the concerned officers of the raiding party which was signed by one Amrutlal Nagar, the representative of the consumer. That thereafter the meter was seized, wrapped in paper and sent for joint laboratory test. That the meter was checked in the laboratory in presence of the consumer and it was specifically found that the seal of the meter was tampered with a view to record the consumption of electricity and thereby there was a theft of electricity by the consumer. Considering the above report of the Laboratory Inspector, the Gujarat Electricity Board issued the supplementary bill for the amount of Rs.91,826.37 ps.
[2.1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the supplementary bill issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board for the amount of Rs.91,826.37 ps., the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee and after considering the submissions made by the petitioner herein consumer, by impugned order the Appellate Committee has partly allowed the said appeal by modifying the supplementary bill and reduced it from Rs.91,826.37 ps. to Rs.76,800/-. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee, the petitioner consumer preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[3.0] Shri Yash Joshi, learned advocate for Shri Thakkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the Appellate Committee has materially erred in modifying the bill to the extent of Rs.76,800/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Electricity Board and Appellate Committee have materially erred in issuing the supplementary bill considering 24 hours and 7 days consumption. It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even the observation made in the impugned order of the Appellate Committee that the consumption pattern shows that compared to the connected load, the consumption was much less prior to detection, is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.
[4.0] Present petition is opposed by Shri S.N. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Committee after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and considering the report of the Laboratory Inspector and the supplementary bill has been issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board as per the ABCD formula after having satisfied that the petitioner had committed the theft of power. Therefore, it is requested not to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Committee.
Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.
[5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length and perused the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee/Gujarat Electricity Board and the relevant documents on record. That the premises of the petitioner was raided by the raiding party on 04.11.2003 and it was found that the MMB seal was tampered. It was also found that the meter glass was also once opened and thereafter the same was refixed by araldite. Therefore, it was found to be a case of suspected theft. Therefore, the meter was sent to laboratory and the same was checked by the Laboratory Inspector in presence of the petitioner and on testing of the meter, the Laboratory Inspector also found that the seal of the meter was tampered and there was a theft of electricity. It was also found that the meter glass was refixed with araldite. Considering the above and as per the ABCD formula, the Electricity Board issued supplementary bill for the amount of Rs.91,826.37 ps. However, considering the limited use of blower of 2 HP and deep freeze and considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the Appellate Committee by impugned order has modified the supplementary bill and has reduced the same to Rs.76,800/-. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when it was found that the petitioner has committed the theft of power and thereafter a supplementary bill was directed to be issued for the amount of Rs.76,800/- (which was originally for the amount of Rs.91,826.37 ps.), it cannot be said that the Appellate Committee has committed any error and/or illegality which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a case of theft of electricity, the supplementary bill is to be issued as per the ABCD formula and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Committee modifying the supplementary bill in reducing to Rs.76,800/-.
[5.1] No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, present Special Civil Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Ajay Page 4 of 4