Gujarat High Court
Radhakrishna Ice Factory vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. & on 21 July, 2017
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/5912/2005 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5912 of 2005
==========================================================
RADHAKRISHNA ICE FACTORY....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR J V BHAIRAVIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 21/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. B. T. Rao for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. J. V. Bhairaviya for the respondents.
2. What is prayed by the petitioner is to set aside order dated 25.03.2004 passed by the appellate committee. Also prayed to be set aside is the supplementary bill issued to the petitioner by the respondent electricity Board for Rs. 9,06,889.83 ps.. It is next prayed by the petitioner to hold that the respondent board was not entitled to ask for the delayed payment charges during the period when statutory appeal was preferred and disposed of.
3. Noticing the basic facts, the petitioner was a partnership firm, running a business of ice factory in the name of Radhakrishna Ice factory since 1997. The petitioner had an electricity installation at the place of his factory and was a consumer of erstwhile Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 02:11:44 IST 2017 C/SCA/5912/2005 ORDER Gujarat Electricity Board-now converted into an electricity company. On 5.2.2003, the checking squad of the respondent board came to the installation site of the petitioner. The checking party undertook the checking and the checking sheet was prepared. It was mentioned that the petitioner had left the place without putting his signature in the checking sheet.
3.1 In the checking sheet it was inter alia mentioned that the load was 895 HP. Certain facts about mis- treatment and tampering with the electric meter were noticed. It was recorded that printed paper seal of the meter box was in a broken condition, that the sealed wire was in a shining condition and appeared to be newly replaced. The lock which was applied to the meter box was also found to be doubtful.
3.2 The meter was removed on the basis of the checking sheet. It was replaced on 3.5.2003. Thereafter, the old meter was sent to the laboratory for inspection. The supplementary bill for the aforesaid amount was issued on the ground that theft of electricity was committed by the petitioner. The petitioner deposited 20% of the amount and approached the appellate committee of the respondent board by preferring appeal, which culminated into the impugned order.
4. At the time of issuance of Rule on 02.09.2005, this court passed the following order, "RULE. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the respondent Board will reconnect the power supply of the petitioner on the following conditions:-
Page 2 of 6HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 02:11:44 IST 2017 C/SCA/5912/2005 ORDER [a] The petitioner shall pay the outstanding dues in respect of the supplementary bill, reconnection charges and delay payment charges if any, in six monthly equal installments and first such installment shall be paid on or before 15th September, 2005. On payment of first installment, and reconnection charges, the respondent board shall reconnect the power supply of the petitioner.
[b] If any default is committed in making the payment stated above, it will be open for the respondent Board to disconnect the power supply without any further orders of this Court.
[c] The petitioner shall pay the monthly consumption bills regularly.
[d] The petitioner shall file an undertaking in these proceedings to the above extent within a period of 15 days from today.
5. The appellate committee noticed from the perusal of the checking sheet dated 5.2.2003, that it was shown therein that the connected load was 95 HP. At the time of checking sheet and the checking of the installation, the consumer chose not to remain present and his representative left the site during the process of the checking. Now, as already noted, the checking sheet mentioned that the Metallic Meter Box (MMB) printed seal was in totally damaged condition. The appellate committee recorded on the basis of the checking sheet that the seal wire MMB Plastic seal was evidently new and replaced one. It was signing too much. The padlock provided for MMB was doubtful. The MMB was removed and the meter was sent for laboratory inspection after preparing rojkam which was signed by the officers of the respondent board and also signed by the authorised representative of the consumer.
5.1 Confirming the aforesaid acts noticed at the time Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 02:11:44 IST 2017 C/SCA/5912/2005 ORDER of checking, the laboratory inspection report stated that the MMB seal was duplicate and it did not match with the standard seal applied by the electricity board. All the four meter body seals and terminal cover seals were noticed to be duplicate.
5.2 Therefore, there were ample indications and evidences which showed the acts of tempering of the meter. The appellate committee was justified in accepting checking sheet and the laboratory inspection report. They were relevant documents which evidenced that the appellant had committed theft of electricity energy by indulging into unauthrosied means and acts of tempering.
6. The appellate committee recorded its findings on the basis of the material on record which were as under.
"On perusal of the checking sheet dated 5.2.2003, the connected load was found at 95 HP. Furthermore, from the checking sheet it is found that at the time of checking, no representative of the appellant was present as party had lef the site during the checking. In the checking sheet, it is mentioned that the MMP printed paper seal was in totally damaged condition. The seal wire of MMB plastic seal was too much shining, seal of MMB was looking new one and padlock provided on MMB was also doubtful. The checking authority, therefore, instructed the local office to remove the MMB alongwith the meter and incoming and outgoing cable for laboratory inspection. Hence, on 3.5.2003, D.E., City Porbandar, had removed the MMB alongwith the meter and incoming and outcoming cables and wrapped and sealed. Rojkam to that effect was prepared and was signed by the officers of the respondent Board and also signed by authorised representative of the consumer. The laboratory inspection was carried out on 26.02.2003. At the time of laboratory inspection, the representative of the appellant was present. In the laboratory inspection, it is mentioned that the MMB seal is duplicate and not matching with the standard seal of the Board. All the 4-meter body seals and terminal cover seal were also Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 02:11:44 IST 2017 C/SCA/5912/2005 ORDER found duplicate. So it is opined that all the MMB seals as well as meter body seals are tampered and duplicate seals are provided. Also in padlock two different shades of metafil was observed. Hence, this is a case of theft of electrical energy. The representative of the appellant has also singed the laboratory inspection report with protest. However, he has not stated the reasons for protest. We have no reasons not to accept both these documents on record. From this evidence, it has been clearly established that the appellant has committed pilferage of electric energy. At the same time, we wold also like to state that there was increase in the consumption after the replacement of meter."
6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the above findings are imminently just and reasonable. Other aspect dealt with by the appellate committee was about the connected load, where also no error was noticed.
"Next question that would arise is about the connected load factor 'A'. So far as the connected load is concerned, the appellant has contended that on 3.5.2003, the MMB alongwith meter and incoming and outgoing cables were wrapped and sealed and Rojkam was prepared and in that Rojkam, the connected load is mentioned as 66HP. But in checking sheet dated 5.2.2003, the total connected load was found at 95 HP by the I/c Squad of Himatnagar Circle and we do not have any reason to neglect the checking sheet dated 5.2.2003. Therefore, connected load factor 'A' does not require to be changed."
6.2 It was a contention of the appellant petitioner that the billing period was not in accordance with the Conditions For Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Energy. The said aspect also did not find favour from facts. The appellate committee rejected the same and further observed that for calculating of the chargeable rate, the respondent Board had taken 184 as gross chargeable rate, for the factory of the petitioner was an ice factory and the production process at the factory was a continuous process.
Page 5 of 6HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 02:11:44 IST 2017 C/SCA/5912/2005 ORDER 6.3 On none of the counts, the petitioner's case could be accepted by the appellate authority. When the findings by the appellate authority were based on the relevant material and they were not found to be perverse in any way, this court would not interferer. The checking sheet was prepared by the expert engineers and the laboratory inspection report was obtained upon getting the meter scientifically examined. There was no good reason not to accept the factual details mentioned in those documents. Findings recorded on the basis of those reports could be said to be eminently just and proper. This court would not sit in appeal over those findings concurrently recorded.
7. The impugned order of the Appellate Committee could not be said to be booking any error so as to require interference of this court in its writ jurisdiction. The meritless petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim orders vacated.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 02:11:44 IST 2017