Gujarat High Court
Tadia Texlone C/O.Gayatri Coldstorage ... vs Superintendent Engineer Dakshin ... on 28 January, 2013
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
TADIA TEXLONE C/O.GAYATRI COLDSTORAGE THRO.NILESH K AGRAWAL....Petitioner(s)V/SSUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. C/SCA/8121/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8121 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ============================================================== 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 ? ============================================================== TADIA TEXLONE C/O.GAYATRI COLDSTORAGE THRO.NILESH K AGRAWAL....Petitioner(s) Versus SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. & 1....Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance: MR MILIND R KULKARNI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 28/01/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
Mr.Kulkarni is not present even in the second round. Hence, dismissed for default.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Date : 29/01/2013 Before the order is signed, Mr. Kulkarni prays for restoration and he is ready to proceed with the matter. Hence, the earlier order is recalled and the matter is further heard.
The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by the appellate committee whereby the supplementary bill is confirmed.
The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is having electricity connection bearing Consumer No. 06401/01971/9 of 40HP. On 30.05.2003 when the checking was made, it was found that the petitioner had connected the load of two compressors, total of which was about 88HP and therefore, the supplementary bill was issued of Rs.1,12,752.75. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said supplementary bill before the appellate committee and the appellate committee by the impugned order dated 10.11.2003, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition before this court.
I have heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Hingorani with Ms.Bhaya for the respondent.
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the second compressor of 40 HP was only by way of standby in order to see that the perishable items in cold storage may not be spoiled because of non-functioning of one compressor and therefore, he submitted that when the second compressor was only by way of standby, it could not be treated as a connected load. He also submitted that the capacity of the motor used in the compressor is not recorded and the capacity of the compressor is considered. It was submitted that without the help of the motor, compressor cannot be operated and therefore, if one has to find out the actual connected load, the capacity of the motor was required to be recorded which has not been recorded at the time when the checking sheet was prepared. As per the learned counsel the capacity of the motor was 30HP for both the compressors and therefore, if the said capacity is considered, the connected load would not exceed the prescribed load for which the electricity connection was granted. He therefore submitted that the said aspect is not considered by the appellate committee and therefore, this Court may consider.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the appellate committee.
If the compressor is having a particular capacity, though inside its mechanism, there may be use of the motor, the connected load is to be counted on the basis of the capacity of the compressor and it cannot be on the basis of the capacity of the motor which is one of the part in the compressor. Further, no such objection was raised at the time when the checking sheet was prepared. Therefore, even if it is considered that such contention was available to the petitioner, then also there is no substance.
The contention based on the say that one compressor was only as standby, also would not assume much importance because the fact remains that another compressor was already connected. Once the compressor was connected, the capacity for connected load is to be counted accordingly. Hence, it is not possible for me to accept the contention as sought to be canvassed.
Under the circumstances, the petition is meritless. Hence, dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) bjoy Page 4 of 4