Gujarat High Court
Piyush Salt & Chem Works Through Partner vs Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co Ltd on 12 December, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 (NOC) 155 (GUJ.)
Author: K.J.Thaker
Bench: K.J.Thaker
PIYUSH SALT & CHEM WORKS THROUGH PARTNER....Petitioner(s)V/SDAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD C/SCA/8524/2004 CAV JUDGEMNT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8524 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 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 ?
================================================================ PIYUSH SALT & CHEM WORKS THROUGH PARTNER....Petitioner(s) Versus DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 12/12/2013 CAV JUDGEMNT
1. This is a petition by the petitioner, a registered partnership Firm, challenging the order of the Appellate Committee, GEB, Dated : 06.04.2004, whereby, it maintained the action of respondent of issuing supplementary bill to it to the extent of Rs.4,01,826.57/-, after deducting the units counted for off-season / non-working period, which comes to about three months.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing salt. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner has obtained an electricity connection from the respondent electricity company, which was earlier known as GEB, with Consumer No. 08882/00451/1 LTP-1. The meter installed at the premises of the petitioner-Firm came to be changed by the respondent on 11.09.2003 and it came to be inspected for the first time, after the change of meter, on 10.12.2003. Then, on 11.12.20013 again, an inspection of the meter was carried out and it was found that the petitioner-Firm was indulging in theft of electricity, and hence, a checking sheet was prepared. On the basis of the said checking sheet, the petitioner-Firm was issued a supplementary bill to the tune of Rs.7,90,288.12/-. The petitioner-Firm, then, carried the matter into appeal, after depositing 50 per cent amount of the supplementary bill issued by the respondent-Company. The Appellate Committee, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.
3. Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Firm, submitted that the order of the Appellate Committee is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. He, further, submitted that the Appellate Committee failed to appreciate that the allegations of theft made against the petitioner-Firm are baseless and based on mere assumptions and presumptions. He, further, submitted that the Appellate Committee ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent for non-furnishing of MRI data to the petitioner-Firm. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the unit of the petitioner-Firm functions seasonally, the Appellate Committee ought to have ordered appropriate reduction in the amount of supplementary bill prepared by the respondent, by deducting off-season period, and therefore, the petition be allowed.
4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Rao has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 16975 of 2003, Dated :
29.01.2013, wherein, this Court, under almost similar circumstances, quashed and set aside the order of the Appellate Committee, GEB, whereby, it mechanically confirmed the action of the Respondent-Electrical Company of charging amount for six months for the alleged electricity theft by the petitioner, therein, and observed that when there is cogent and convincing evidence available on record, which showed that the period of alleged electricity theft could not have been beyound a particular date, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay charges for six months.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Bhaya, learned Counsel for the respondent-Company, supported the order of the Appellate Committee and submitted that the same was passed after perusing the material on record, and hence, no interference is called for with the same at the hands of this Court and the petition be dismissed. Ms. Bhaya in support of her case placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court;
(1) M/S. HYEDERABAD VANASPATHI LTD. VS. AP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. , 1998 (3) Supreme 454;
(2)JMD ALLOYS LTD. VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. , (2003) 5 SCC 226;
6. Ms. Bhaya also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6053 of 2004, Dated : 27.09.2013 in the case of PARASAMANI PROTEINS VS. PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. .
7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record with their assistance. From a perusal of the Checking Sheet, Dated : 11.12.2003, it transpires that the officials of the respondent-Company collected MRI data on 10.11.2003 and on analysing the same, when they suspected of some irregularity on the part of the petitioner in electricity consumption, they again visited the premises of the petitioner-Firm on 11.12.2003 and carried out thorough inspection and this time they found that the connected load was 82.5 HP against the contract load of 100 HP. Besides that, the distribution transformer LT side bushing stud, on which M seal was provided, was also found to be broken and that a cable could be connected with the same with the help of a jaw clamp and thereby theft of electricity could be committed. Even, the marks of sparking on the stud of the bushing were also noticed by the officials, which indicates that the petitioner-Firm was indulging in electricity theft. Hence, the order of the Appellate Committee requires to be confirmed to that extent.
8. Insofar as the aspect of chargability is concerned, it is not in dispute that the meter of the petitioner-Firm was changed by the respondent-Company on 11.09.2003 and at that time no irregularity was reported or noticed by the respondent-Company on the part of the petitioner-Firm in consumption of electricity and it is only on 10.12.2003 that they suspected theft of electricity for the first time, which stood confirmed by a through inspection of the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner-Firm on 11.12.2003. In other words, it is neither the case of the respondent-Company nor does it led any evidence to show that the petitioner-Firm had been indulging into theft of electricity, even prior to 11.09.2003, i.e. before the change of the meter. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Committee is not justified in upholding the action of respondent-Company in counting the chargability period as six months in a mechanical manner, and hence, in view of the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 16975 of 2003, as stated above, the order of the Appellate Committee requires to be quashed and set aside to the extent, it orders the petitioner-Firm to pay the amount towards electricity theft for a period of six months and the ends of justice would met, if, the respondent-Company is directed to recalculate the electricity charges from 11.09.2003 to 11.12.2003 and to issue a fresh supplementary bill to the petitioner-Firm for the aforesaid period..
9. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The impugned order of the Appellate Committee, GEB, Dated : 06.04.2004, is QUASHED and set aside to the extent it directs the petitioner-Firm to pay the amount towards electricity theft for a period of six months and that the respondent-Company is directed to issue a fresh supplementary bill, as stated above, to the petitioner-Firm for the period from 11.09.2003 to 11.12.2003. The respondent-Company will recalculate the amount to be paid by the petitioner-Firm towards electricity theft and will refund the excess amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-Firm. Rest of the order of the Appellate Committee stands CONFIRMED. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.J.THAKER, J) UMESH Page 7 of 7