Gujarat High Court
Ujala Dyeing And Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd vs Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. Notice To Be ... on 6 February, 2014
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
C/SCA/13310/2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13310 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
UJALA DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.....Petitioner
Versus
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH - &
1....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SONAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date : 06/02/2014
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/13310/2003 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, a private limited company and consumer of electricity has approached this Court by way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:
"(A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside (i) the bill of Rs.47,18,923.80 dated 11.7.2002 issued by Gujarat Electricity Board, (ii) the order dated 4.2.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gujarat Electricity Board in Appeal No.A-94 of 2002 and (iii) bill of Rs.17,16,316/-
issued in March 2003 by Gujarat Electricity Board;
(B) For costs;
(C) For such other and further reliefs as the circumstances of case may require."
Thus what is essentially under challenge is the raising of supplementary bill on the ground that the same is contrary to law and, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside.
2. Facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be gathered from memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under.
The petitioner enjoyed HT electricity connection bearing No. 10567. It was falling in HTP-I Tariff wherein the contract demand load was 425 KVA. Petitioner received supply of electricity since 19/1/2000.The concerned Dy. Engineer of the respondent electricity company made surprise visit on 6/7/2002 and found that there was hole in the cable. Metering cable was sealed and seized in respect of which report dated 6/7/2002 is placed on record. Joint laboratory analysis was carried out on 11/7/2002. Said report contained finding to the effect that there Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/13310/2003 JUDGMENT were holes in the metering cable. Based there upon it was concluded that on account of arrangement made for low recording energy, consumption was not recorded correctly. Supplementary bill came to be raised for Rs.47,18,923.80 and supply was disconnected on 11/7/2002. On petitioner depositing 30% of the supplementary bill on 12/7/2002 supply was reconnected on 13/7/2002. Petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. While partly allowing bill, appellate authority taken into consideration chargeable days and reduced it from 181 to 145. No other contentions were accepted. Revised bill on that basis was received and as there was no provision of review, petitioner's review application was turned down. The mode of calculating supplementary bill amount was not in consonance with provision of Conditions of Supply, viz. Condition no. 34 (2) and therefore same was assailed by way of this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid heavy emphasis upon the aspect of calculation of supplementary bill amount and contended that there exists clear error on the part of the authorities as the clear mandate of condition no. 34(2) of the supply for taking into load factor is blatantly violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that condition no.2 of Supply Condition No. 34 provides for considering the load factor. It is mentioned that in case of HT consumer taking supply by high tension is detected to have committed theft of energy, the actual maximum demand shall be considered an equivalent to 75% of the total connected load of the consumer at the time of inspection subject to minimum of the contracted demand and the energy consumption shall be as assessed as under:
Assessed units per months = M x H x C Where M = Demand in KW (KVA x PF) H = Nos. of Hours in month Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/13310/2003 JUDGMENT C = Load Factor
4. Learned counsel thereafter invited this Court's attention to the checking-sheet and contended that the contract load was 425 KVA and when checking was carried out actual connected load was less in the contractual load and therefore, that was connected load at the time of checking, 75% thereof should have been taken to be factor for arriving at correct assessment for raising the supplementary bill. Learned counsel did not canvass any other submissions, except the submission that in case of even during checking connected load was found to be less than the contracted load, 75% of the demand load i.e. actual connected load should have been taken into consideration for raising and arriving at a conclusion qua the supplementary bill. The appellate committee's order is absolutely silent qua precise contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and therefore the order of the appellate committee dated 4/2/2003 is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she does not press into service any other ground or challenges and confine to the calculation of supplementary bill amount only and submitted that as it was contrary to provision of Supply Condition No. 34 (2) same should be quashed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to appellate committee's observation and submitted that the committee has gone on the aspect of contract load only when the actual demand and the connected load was less than actual contract load. Thus the connected load and 75% thereof should be the real methodology of calculating the supplementary bill amount.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when checking sheet itself indicated that connected load was lesser than actual Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/13310/2003 JUDGMENT contracted load, then also, calculating supplementary bill, taking into consideration the contract load would be contrary to supply condition no. 34 (2), as the said condition is very clear and therefore, same should have been taken to be 75% of the actual load found during the time of checking.
8. Learned counsel appearing for electricity company submitted that the condition it its plain and simple reading would indicate that 75% of the demanded load is to be counted subject to contract load and when the actual demand load is even found to be lesser than the contract load in a case of theft or illegal or unauthorized consumption of electricity, then, the presumption is permissible that on other days actual contract load is to be utilized. In that view of the matter supplementary bill raised is just and proper and no interference is called for.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the company heavily emphasized upon the phraseology employed in the condition and submitted that the consumer in an ordinary circumstance is entitled to contend that demand load only been considered, but when it is case of theft and or malpractice then, the statutory provision is to be complied and interpreted in strict manner which would indicate that irrespective of checking day the consumer is to be made liable to pay supplementary bill based upon the formula prescribed there under and in order to see to it that no injustice is done in case of high tension consumer, 75% of the connected load is prescribed, but that also again made specifically and explicitly clear subject to the contract load and in the instant case contract load is 425 KVA is not disputed by anyone and accordingly supplementary bill is drawn and same cannot be said to be in any manner illegal so as to call for interference.
10. This Court is of the considered view that the petition is required to Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/13310/2003 JUDGMENT be dismissed for the following reasons.
The plain and simple reading of Supply Condition No. 34 (2) would clearly indicate that the author of the conditions had envisaged an eventuality when ordinarily the actual connected load was to be taken for consideration for raising bill to be a period of six months, but in that case for the high tension consumer some respite is given and therefore 75% of the actual connected load is to be considered. But that has been explicitly made subject to the contract load and in the instant case contract load happened to be 425 KVA and, therefore, when the supplementary bill is based thereupon there cannot be said to be any irregularity or illegality committed in the order of the appellate authority. The petition being bereft of merits deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any earlier granted, shall stand vacated. However there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) vgn Page 6 of 6