Gujarat High Court
Shree Raj Salt & vs Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co on 12 September, 2013
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
SHREE RAJ SALT & CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD.V/SDAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH - C/SCA/12882/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12882 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ================================================================ 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 ? ================================================================ SHREE RAJ SALT & CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD. & 1....Petitioner(s) Versus DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH - & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 MRS RANJAN B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA Date : 12/09/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Arts. 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayer, inter alia, that the supplementary bill at Annexure-A may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Shri Patel for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. LK Bhaya for the respondents.
3. Learned advocate Shri Patel referred to the papers and submitted that the supplementary bill which has been issued is erroneous. He referred to the order passed by the Appellate Committee and submitted that as it was contended there were 8 motors of 7.5 HP and one motor of 5 HP and therefore the load was within the limit as the petitioner was having contract load of 75 HP. Learned advocate Shri Patel also referred to the report at Annexure-D dated 25.3.2003 to emphasize about the actual load and submitted that the connected load was within the permissible limit. He, therefore, submitted that the entire basis proceeding on the assumption about the excess electricity consumed over and above the contracted load is erroneous. He therefore submitted that the present petition may be allowed.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya referred to Annexure-C which is the joint inspection report dated 2.5.2003 and submitted that as stated the contracted load is 75 HP and at the time of inspection the connected load was found to be 100 HP. It was submitted that the inspection was a joint inspection and no objection has been raised and it has been signed by the officer of the petitioner company which is also recorded. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya also submitted that as observed in the findings of the Appellate Committee, this aspect has been specifically dealt with and it has also been recorded and in fact the checking report was prepared on 2.5.2003 in presence of one Shri RR Khare, Manager of the unit, who had signed the checking report without protest. She has further referred to the details about the checking report and submitted that at the time of checking the connected load was 121.07 KW and as it is a case of malpractice of connected load of 100 HP against the contracted load of 75 HP, the petitioner is liable for payment of the extra load which it has consumed without permission. She further submitted that the Appellate Committee has also considered the rival submissions and on the contrary has confirmed about the malpractice and therefore the present petition may not be entertained.
5. In view of the rival submissions and having regard to the checking report which is shown by learned advocate Ms. Bhaya confirming that the connected load was 100 HP as against the contracted load of 75 HP, there is an unauthorized withdrawal or abstraction of energy without permission. The Appellate Committee has also considered this aspect and has passed a detailed order which does not call for exercise of any discretion under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The main contention raised by learned advocate Shri Patel that the motor was of 7.5 HP and it has been wrongly recorded as 10 HP is again a matter which is sought to be raised as an after-thought. In any view of the matter, it could be a disputed question of fact. Further, at the time of joint inspection report which has been countersigned by the representative of the petitioner, no such reservation or objection has been raised or noted, otherwise it could have been specifically pointed out. Therefore, such a contention raised cannot be readily accepted.
6. In the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) (hn) Page 4 of 4