Gujarat High Court
Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs Assistant Electrical Inspectorand ... on 2 March, 2017
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/3953/2007 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3953 of 2007
===========================================================
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL INSPECTORAND APPELLATE AUTHORITY &
1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI FOR MR C B UPADHYAYA, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 02/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner - Electricity Company has filed present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3rd October, 2006 passed by the Assistant Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority in Appeal No.38 of 2005 preferred by respondent No.2 under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act").
2. As per the case of the petitioner, during inspection of the meter of respondent No.2, it was found that theft of electrical energy was committed, therefore, respondent No.2 was issued with the supplementary bill for Rs.1,13,682.78paisa on 23.07.2005. However, the Appellate Authority quashed the supplementary bill ignoring the laboratory inspection report and by giving undue benefits to respondent No.2.
Page 1 of 4HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:21:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/3953/2007 ORDER
3. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the petitioner submitted that simply on the basis of consumption of higher units of electricity than the amount of units assessed for last six months preceding the date of inspection, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the case of theft was not proved against respondent No.2 and based on such perverse conclusion, the Appellate Authority not only quashed the supplementary bill but also ordered adjustment of the difference of amount for electricity consumption based on the actual consumption during the above said period and the assessment done by the petitioner - Electricity Company on ABCD formula. He submitted that the Appellate Authority exceeded in its jurisdiction in relying upon the actual consumption of energy, when it was clearly found that respondent No.2 has committed theft of electrical energy by tampering with the meter installed at its premises.
4. Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner - Electricity Company has already recovered the consumption charges for 11199 units during last six months and in the checking-sheet, it was accepted without any dispute that respondent No.2 had used the correct load. He submitted that when the assessment was done as per the ABCD formula for the same period, the units arrived at were found to be less than the actual units consumed by respondent No.2 during last six months and, therefore, there was no question of treating the case of respondent No.2 as that of theft of electrical energy. He submitted that the Appellate Authority has committed no Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:21:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/3953/2007 ORDER error in relying on the actual units consumed which were higher than the assessed units under the ABCD formula and rightly came to the conclusion that it was not proved by the petitioner that respondent No.2 had committed theft of the electrical energy. He submitted that in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this court may not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Court may, therefore, dismiss the petition.
5. Learned AGP Swapneshwar Gautam has appeared for respondent No.1.
6. The Court, having heard learned advocates, finds that based on the laboratory inspection report, respondent No.2 was issued supplementary bill for theft of electrical energy. The inspection report placed with the petition at Annexure-C clearly reveals that theft of electrical energy was committed by tampering with the meter. The petitioner was therefore, justified in making assessment as per the ABCD formula for serving the supplementary bill to respondent No.2. Nowhere in the order of the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has recorded that the inspection report was wrong. But the Appellate Authority has curiously come to the conclusion that the theft of electrical energy is not proved because units consumed by respondent No.2 during last six months preceding the date of the inspection were higher than the units arrived at as per the ABCD formula. Such finding of the Appellate Authority reveals non-application of mind inasmuch as the modus operandi of the consumer to tamper with the meter was with an intention to see that the meter Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:21:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/3953/2007 ORDER installed at its premises would record less consumption of electricity. Therefore, actual units found to have been consumed during last six months preceding the date of inspection were to be taken as units of the electrical energy less recorded by the meter than the actual consumption of the electrical energy because of the tampering with the meter.
7. The Court finds that the approach taken by the Appellate Authority to hold that the case of theft was not established against respondent No.2 was perverse in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Appellate Authority. Once the laboratory inspection report revealed that there was theft of electrical energy by tampering with the meter. The consequential action was rightly followed to recover the charges by supplementary bill from respondent No.2 as per the ABCD formula for theft of the electrical energy.
8. In view of the above, the Court finds that the impugned order cannot stand scrutiny of law and is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd October, 2005 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.38 of 2005 preferred by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(C.L.SONI, J.) Gupta* Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 03:21:48 IST 2017