Gujarat High Court
Chhaganbhai vs Gujarat on 24 February, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2129/2005 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2129 of 2005
=========================================================
CHHAGANBHAI
SHAMJIBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SUDHA R GANGWAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SN SINHA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 24/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The petitioner prays to quash and set aside the appellate judgment, in so far as it is against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a consumer of Gujarat Electricity Board. His consumer number is 83507/00001/6 LTP-1 with contract load of 65 HP. The petitioner is having an Oil Mill at Bagasara.
3. The Deputy Engineer, Bagasara visited the unit of the petitioner for replacement of the old meter by static meter under rectification programme on 22nd March 2002. The old meter was removed and the new meter was fixed. After checking necessary checking report along with Rojkam was prepared. In the checking report as well as in the Rojkam there was no mention about the condition of the MMB hook.
4. The old meter was not tested in the laboratory for quite long time. Ultimately, after a period of about one year, on 1st August 2003 the meter was inspected in the laboratory. At the time of inspection it was alleged that the MMB hook was broken and MMB door can be opened without disturbing MMB seal. However, the MMB seal was found O.K.
5. The petitioner in pursuance of the report on 1st August 2003 the power connection of the petitioner was disconnected and a special bill for Rs 5, 56.926 was issued to the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned supplementary bill the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee of the respondent Board. The appeal was kept for hearing on 29th September 2004. The petitioner remained present before the Appellate committee and defended the case. After hearing the parties the Appellate Committee partly allowed the appeal.
7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Committee has not decided many relevant points raised by the petitioner before it. She submitted that in fact MMB seal was ok and therefore, there was no theft at all.
8 In the Appellate order it is recorded as under :
It was observed that the hook of MMB was found broken though the MMB seal was found ok in the laboratory inspection. While opening the meter it was found that the meter body seals were ok and on further inspection of the interiors of the meter, the CT load and main side wiring of all the phase were found tampered with. In that the S1 and S2 ends of all the CTs of R,Y and B phases were found cut near terminal block and the insulation sleeve at S2 ends of Y and B phases were found tampered and additional wires were brought out and soldered to S2 wires after breaking, thus joint was made and R phase CT S2 out of the wires, one wire was found soldered while another wire was found separated. Thus, the inspecting officers came to the conclusion that the appellant had tampered with CT coil wires and by this way the recording of the consumption in the meter could be reduced and the appellant had committed theft of electrical energy. Necessary laboratory inspection report was prepared and the representative of the appellant had signed the inspection report with protest that the meter was found separated in the MMB and the wiring might have been found loose or separated due to that. From the laboratory inspection report it is apparent that the CT wires were also tampered with and the appellant had committed theft of electrical energy. His objection are not acceptable.
9. Admittedly hook of MMB was found broken, R,Y and B phases were found cut near terminal hook and the insulation seelve at S2 ends of Y and B and phases were found tampered and additional wires were brought out and soldered to S2 wires after breaking . Therefore, there was tampering with the meter mechanism.
10. From the forgoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the authority is just and proper and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(K.S. Jhaveri,J.) mary// Top