Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12157/2005 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12157 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
PERFECT
WOVEN SACKS PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,THROUGH - & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BM VAISHNAV for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MS LILU K BHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SN SINHA for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 08/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. On
04.02.2010, this Court has passed the following order;
It
is reported that Mr.B.M. Vaishnav, learned
advocate for the
petitioner,
has filed a sick-note today. Yesterday also, he had filed a
sick-note. In view of the same, the matter is adjourned to
08th February 2010.
If
he is not able to appear in the matter even on the next date, he
shall make an alternative arrangement for appearing in the matter.
2. Today,
when the matter was called out in the first sessions, learned
advocate for the petitioner requested to hear the matter in the
second sessions on the ground that he has to attend some matter,
which has been fixed for hearing today, by another Court. The Court
accepted the request made by Mr. Vaishnav and accordingly, kept back
the same for hearing in the second sessions.
3. However,
in the second sessions, when the matter was called out, learned
advocate for the petitioner was not present. The aforesaid conduct of
the learned advocate for the petitioner is nothing but, an attempt to
get an adjournment from this Court. Considering the fact that Mr.
Vaishnav has consistently not remained present, this Court has no
other alternative but, to proceed with the matter on merits, in his
absence.
4. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
29.01.2005 passed by the appellate Committee of the respondent-Board
in Appeal No.103/2004 in so far as it is against the petitioner as
also the supplementary bill raising the demand of Rs.25,63,026.00; or
to direct the respondent-Board to consider the penalty factor of 1.5
and / or the load factor of 0.2 and to calculate the supplementary
bill accordingly; or to remand the matter to the appellate Committee
of the respondent-Board for deciding the same afresh.
5. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner herein is a Consumer of the
respondent-electricity company and has taken H.T. connection of 250
KVA for its factory premises. The agreement between the petitioner
and respondent-company was to expire in the year 2001. Before the
expiry period, the petitioner had requested the respondent-Company to
reduce the contract load, which was, subsequently, reduced to 170 KVA
from 250 KVA.
6. On
17-18.08.2004 the inspection squad of the respondent visited the
premises of the petitioner and allegedly found certain
irregularities. In pursuance thereof, a bill of Rs.54,34,890/- was
issued to the petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the appellate Committee of the respondent. After
hearing both the sides, the appellate Committee dismissed the appeal
preferred by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary bill
of Rs.49,13,790/- was issued to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
7. Heard
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents on
record. When the inspecting squad visited the premises of the
petitioner on 18.08.2004 for the purpose of replacing the CTPT unit,
it found the cables of the unit to be tampered with. The ‘R’ phase
and ‘B’ phase cables were shortened by providing extra chip in it.
The aforesaid irregularity was noted down in the Rojkam, in
presence of the representative of the petitioner. The Laboratory
inspection report as also the M.R.I. proved the aforesaid
irregularities. On the basis of the aforesaid irregularties, the
appellate Committee of the respondent-Company recorded the finding
that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity.
8. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on
record, I am of the opinion that the respondent-Company was
completely justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the
petitioner and in issuing the supplementary bill in question and
hence, I find no reasons to interfere in this petition in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top