Gujarat High Court
Chhaganbhai vs Gujarat on 4 July, 2011
Bench: S.J.Mukhopadhaya, K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1201/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1201 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2129 of 2005
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4921 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1201 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 623 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5515 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1201 of
2010
=================================================
CHHAGANBHAI
SHAMJIBHAI - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SUDHA R GANGWAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SN SINHA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 15/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) The appellant-petitioner, a consumer of Gujarat Electricity Board, having Consumer No.83507/00001/6 LTP-1 with contract load of 65 H.P., was running oil mill. The Deputy Engineer, Bagasara, visited petitioner's unit for replacement of the old matter by a static meter, and after checking replaced the meter and prepared a report. The old meter was not tested in laboratory for quite long time, and ultimately after about one year, the meter was inspected in the laboratory on 01.08.2003, and on inspection, it was found that the MMB hook was broken and MMB door can be opened without disturbing the MMB seal. However, the MMB seal was found OK.
2. Pursuant to the said report, the petitioner was noticed and supplementary bill was raised for Rs.5,56,962.55ps. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the appellate committee of the respondent-Board. Learned Single Judge having affirmed the appellate order, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the outside MMB seals having found OK, it cannot be said that any theft of energy has taken place. There is no evidence on record to suggest theft of energy, therefore, no supplementary bill can be raised.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Board would contend that in the report MMB hook having found tampered and MMB door can be opened without disturbing the MMB seal, as per the provisions, supplementary bill has been raised.
5. It appears that the respondent-Board initially raised supplementary bill for Rs.5,56,926.55ps. Pursuant to appellate committee's decision, the respondent-Board has brought down the same, and raised a revised supplementary bill for Rs.1,85,717/-, thereby petitioner is granted substantial relief by the appellate committee.
6. Learned Single Judge has noticed the decision of the appellate committee, wherein following observation has been made:-
"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.
7. From the report and finding of the appellate committee, it will be evident that the CT load and main side wiring of all the phases were found tampered with. 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.
After the inspection and the laboratory report, the inner portion of the meter having found tampered as noticed above, if the respondent raised a supplementary bill, which was brought down by the appellate committee from Rs.5,56,926.55ps. to Rs.1,85,717/-, no interference is called for against such decision. In absence of any merit, the Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Applications are dismissed. No costs.
(S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.) (K.M. THAKER, J.) [sn devu] pps Top