Gujarat High Court
Ushaben A Dhulia vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Notice on 12 April, 2013
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
USHABEN A DHULIA....Petitioner(s)V/SGUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH - C/SCA/12818/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12818 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================================ 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 ? ================================================================ USHABEN A DHULIA....Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH - & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 12/04/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Board of issuing revised bill and supplementary bill, which is alleged to be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and it is prayed that the same should be quashed and set aside. The supplementary bill is to the tune of Rs.71,216=75ps. An appeal filed against the same, was dismissed by judgment and order dated 28/06/2004 by the Appellate Committee of the respondent-Board in Case No.6 Appeal No.17863 and revised bill to the tune of Rs.39,031=92ps. was ordered to be issued.
2. Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner tried to convince this Court that this petition is not only required to be entertained, but allowed and so-called arbitrary, unjust and illegal action is to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently tried to convince this Court that the Appellate Authority has committed an error in partly allowing the appeal and reducing the revised bill only to Rs.39,031=92ps. in place of Rs.71,216=75ps.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent invited attention of the Court to the exact nature of the illegality found to have been committed by the petitioner. It is found from para-5 of the order, passed by the appellate authority, which reads as under:-
5.........On perusal of documents on record, it transpires that, all the four PVC seals of meter body were found missing and the wires of the said seals were found cut off. These tamperings are fortified by rise in consumption after the date of checking and after replacement of meter. There is nothing on record except the bare words of appellant consumer to rebut the evidence of tamperings with the meter . Moreover, there is nothing on record to support the version of the appellant consumer in respect of tamperings with the meter. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of respondent Board. It is true that the appellant consumer has taken every care to keep the meter body seals in proper condition upto 02.02.04. But on the date of checking i.e. 05.02.04, the meter body seals were found missing and seal wires of the said seals were found cut off. If the meter body seals are verified every day by employees of his office or any person on his behalf, such tamperings with the meter body seals may not have taken place. (Emphasis supplied) The new Electricity Act, 2003 is not, at present, applicable to existing rules and regulations framed under the provisions of the old Indian Electricity Act as they are saved under the provisions of Section 185 of the new Electricity Act, 2003 till new regulations and rules are framed under the New Electricity Act. All these facts referred to herein above are in our opinion sufficient to hold hat the case as put forward by the respondent Board against Appellate consumer stands established and proved. It is, therefore, very clear that the case of tampering with the meter is proved against appellant consumer.......
5. It is an established fact that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised only in favour of the persons, who are approaching the Court with clean hands. In the present case, the efforts of the petitioner to dislodge the aforesaid findings recorded in the order are not successful. In light of that, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner found to be misplaced and is required to be discarded by this Court.
6. In the result, the petition is found without any substance and hence, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) aruna Page 4 of 4