Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Siddheshwari Ginning Co & on 11 January, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/15693/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15693 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
==========================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER....Petitioner(s)
Versus
SIDDHESHWARI GINNING CO & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AM BHATASARA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR P B KHAMBHOLJA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 11/01/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 6
HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:02:19 IST 2017 C/SCA/15693/2014 JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad in Case No. UG-01-016-2014-15, vide which, the demand raised by the petitioner -electricity company amounting to Rs. 2,81,194.83ps has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent no. 1 is a consumer of the petitioner-electricity company having contracted load of 425 KVA. The respondent was a seasonal consumer and was charged as per clause 13.11.2 of G.E.R.C. Tariff Order dated 16.4.2013. It is the case of the petitioner-electricity company that the respondent no. 1-consumer has consumed excess load than the permissible limits for the period from June, 2013 to September, 2013. The details of such excess consumption has been given at page 4 of the petition. Since the consumer consumed excess units than the permissible load during the exempted months, a bill of Rs. 2,81,194.83ps was raised.
3. The respondent no. 1 approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and the Forum, after hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that the demand raised by the Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:02:19 IST 2017 C/SCA/15693/2014 JUDGMENT petitioner-electricity company was against the provisions of tariff order, and accordingly, set aside the demand. Aggrieved from this decision, the petitioner-electricity company preferred the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has consumed excess electricity during the months from July to September. The details of such excess use has been given at page 4 of the petition. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Tariff Order, the consumer was authorized to use 15% of the contracted load, however, in these months, the respondent no. 1 has consumed excess units and in one of these months he has consumed more than 50% of the contracted load, and as such, has violated the concession granted under the scheme.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1- consumer has argued that the petition in question was not maintainable before this Court in view of the order passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum as the Forum has specifically mentioned that, if aggrieved, the electricity company can approach the Vidhyut Lokpal. It has been argued that no such excess consumption of electricity is there as far as respondent no. 1 -consumer is concerned, and Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:02:19 IST 2017 C/SCA/15693/2014 JUDGMENT no further details of such consumption has been provided to the respondent and in absence of that, the demand raised by the petitioner-electricity company was liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 was a consumer of the petitioner - electricity company and a connection of 425 KVA was installed at the premises of respondent. The respondent no. 1 was being charged as per the rates applicable to HTP-1 consumer. Clause 13.11.1 reads as under:
13.11.1: The expression, "Seasonal Consumer", shall mean a consumer who takes and uses power supply for ice factory, ice-candy machines, ginning and pressing factory, oil mill, rice mill, salt industry, sugar factory, khansari, cold storage plants (including such plants in fishery industry), tapioca, industries manufacturing starch, pumping load or irrigation, white coal manufacturers etc."
7. Further, NOTE under the provisions of clause 16.2 ENERGY CHARGES, reads as under:
NOTE:
1. 10% of total units consumed and Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:02:19 IST 2017 C/SCA/15693/2014 JUDGMENT 15% of the contract demand can be availed beyond the prescribed hours for the purpose of maintenance.
2. For the purpose of office lighting, fans etc. the consumer may apply for a separate connection.
3. This tariff shall be applicable if the consumer so opts to be charged in place of HTP-1 tariff by using electricity exclusively during night hours as above.
4. xxx xxx xxx
5. xxx xxx xxx
8. Close perusal of the aforementioned provisions shows that the consumer could have used 10% of the total unit consumed and 15% of the contract demand. Since the respondent- consumer has consumed excess units than the permissible limits, and therefore, he was liable to pay the charges at HTP-1 rate for these excess units.
9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 consumer that the alternative remedy was available to the petitioner-electricity company is without any basis because as per the provisions of Section 42.2 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if electricity company or consumer are aggrieved by the order of Consumer Forum, only this Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:02:19 IST 2017 C/SCA/15693/2014 JUDGMENT Court has jurisdiction.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad in Case No. UG-01-016-2014-15 is quashed and set aside. If the demand raised by the petitioner-electricity company is not yet not complied with, the same will be complied with within a period of two months from today. Rule is made absolute.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) mandora Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:02:19 IST 2017