Gujarat High Court
M/S.Sanghvi Plastic Indu. ... vs Madhya Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. & on 1 September, 2016
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/11513/2004 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11513 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
M/S.SANGHVI PLASTIC INDU. THRO-PARTNER
MAHENDRABHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ. CO. LTD. & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MS RV ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondents.
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 01/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sat Sep 03 04:37:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/11513/2004 JUDGMENT challenged the order dated 03/07/2004 passed by the Appellate Committee in Appeal No.A- 47/2004, by which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Electricity Act,1910 challenging the supplementary bill issued by the respondent company, was allowed in part.
The petitioner further prayed to quash and set aside the Supplementary Bill as well as Revised Supplementary Bill issued pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Committee.
2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through learned advocate Ms.R.V.Acharya and have filed Affidavit-in-reply opposing to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner.
3. Brief facts, arise from the record, are as under:
3.1 That the respondent company is in distribution of electricity supply to its consumers under the provisions of the Electricity Act,1910. The petitioner company, who has contractual load of 125 HP, was running a factory for manufacturing plastic.
3.2 Junior Engineer, I/c.Squad, Circle Office, Godhara visited the premises of the petitioner on 29/05/2003 and it was found that MMB body seal was tampered and glass applied on the meter body was not in original position.
Accordingly checking sheet was prepared in presence of the representative of the petitioner company. Since the seals applied on meter body was found tampered, the meter was removed, wrapped and sealed in the cover in presence of the Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sat Sep 03 04:37:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/11513/2004 JUDGMENT representative of the petitioner and was sent for detailed examination in the laboratory.
3.3 The said meter was examined in the laboratory in presence of the representative of the petitioner company on 30/05/2003 and it was found that MMB seal was tampered and wires were cut and kept hanging. The laboratory report suggests that other seals were in original position. Therefore, it was observed that after getting MRI data, which records several things like dropping of electricity supply, etc., it can be decided that the case is of electricity theft or not.
3.4 After receiving MRI data, the respondent company issued a supplementary bill for an amount of Rs.12,47,204.06 ps. to the petitioner.
3.5 Being aggrieved by the said supplementary bill, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No.47 of 2004 before the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and after examining the material available on record, has partly allowed the appeal. Appellate Committee held that the petitioner had committed a theft of electricity by tampering with the MMB seal, however, directed the respondent company to issue a revised supplementary bill for 152 days instead of 181 days and further directed to apply ratio of load factor and diversity factor i.e. C/B at 0.32 and keeping the load factor-A unchanged. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Committee, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Mr.B.T.Rao, learned advocate appearing for the Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sat Sep 03 04:37:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/11513/2004 JUDGMENT petitioner has vehemently submitted that the seals, which are alleged to have been tampered, were installed in the year 1998 whereas the checking is made in the year 2003 and, therefore, there are all possibilities of effect of weather on the seals and therefore, the appellate authority has committed a serious error in accepting the version of the respondent company that tampering with the MMB seal would establish the case of theft of electricity, though there was no tampering with any meter as recorded in the laboratory report. He would submit that MRI data has not been verified by the experts and, therefore, the Appellate Committee could not have relied upon such data and could not have passed the impugned order. Therefore, he would submit that the petition may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee may be quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand, Ms.R.V.Acharya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent company would submit that when the meter was checked in presence of the representative of the petitioner, it was found that MMB seal was tampered and wires were cut and kept hanging. MRI data was obtained on the same day i.e. on 30/05/2003 and again collected on 31/05/2003, subsequent to the observations made by the laboratory on 30/05//2003.
5.1 She would further submit that whatever was recorded with regard to tampering with the MMB meter seal on the date of examination, is supported by the laboratory report. She would further submit that Appellate Committee is consisting of five persons, wherein technical persons are members, who have examined the MRI data in detailed and Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sat Sep 03 04:37:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/11513/2004 JUDGMENT rightly came to the conclusion that there was tampering with the meter since there were number of failures in different phases.
5.2 She would further submit that prior to replacement of the meter, units recorded in the meter was 3,000 to 4,000, however, with the new meter, the units recorded was 10,000 to 17,000, so it is established that the petitioner had committed a theft of electricity. Therefore, this court may not exercise power u/s.226 of the Constitution of India and dismiss this petition.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Checking sheet, which has been prepared in presence of the representative of the petitioner on 29/05/2003, clearly mentioned that MMB seals were found tampered and glass applied on the body of the seal was also tampered. The meter was immediately removed, wrapped and sealed in the cover and sent to the laboratory.
On the next day i.e. on 30/05/2003, laboratory personnels examined the meter in detailed in presence of the representative of the petitioner and prepared a report. Laboratory report did establish that MMB meter seal was tampered and wires were cut and kept hanging and prima facie observed that there was tampering with the meter.
Laboratory persons thought it fit to get some more details from MRI data and, therefore, MRI data was collected and sent to the respondent. As observed in the order of Appellate Committee consisting of technical experts, it was found that there were 199 failure counts in R Phase, 77 failure counts in Y phase and 167 current failure counts in B phase.
Therefore all the three phases granted the petitioner
Page 5 of 6
HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sat Sep 03 04:37:34 IST 2016
C/SCA/11513/2004 JUDGMENT
consumer did not record the correct electric consumption. There are the failures recorded with regard to immediate past. Thus, failure of current counts would definitely stop recording the unit, though the consumer is using the electricity supply. It is also pertinent to note that immediately after replacement of new meter, consumption was recorded in the range of 10,000 to 17,000 units instead of 3,000 to 4,000 units, recorded in previous month in the old meter.
It also appears that the Appellate Committee has considered staggering days and has rightly deducted certain days with regard to calculation of days while direct the company to issue a fresh bill.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Committee consisting of technical experts. This petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
sd/-
[A.J.DESAI, J.] *dipti Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sat Sep 03 04:37:34 IST 2016