IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 15927 of 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
SWARAJ OIL MILLS
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 15927 of 2003
MR BP GUPTA for Petitioner No. 1
.......... for Respondent No. 1-3
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
Date of Order: 14/11/2003
ORAL ORDER
Heard ld. counsel Mr. Gupta for the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that on earlier
occasion, findings recorded by the Checking Squad as to
the theft of electricity was turned down by the appellate
authority. The petitioner industry was then submitted a
fresh new electricity meter and the old one was taken out
by the respondent Board. Respondent Board now intends to
test the very meter again after a lapse of 3 years.
Board intends to use its powers within four corners of
law and under relevant powers and authority. So,
obviously, the procedure which the Board intends to
undertake, can not be stayed at present. However, it
would be in the interest of justice if petitioner is
asked to remain present when testing of that very meter
is being carried out.
Ld. counsel Mr. Gupta, however, has submitted
that if after testing of that very meter, finding is
against the petitioner, then Board should be directed not
to implement the said finding at least for a period of
two weeks so that the petitioner can take appropriate
steps qua that finding. Mr. Gupta fairly accepts that
if petitioner does not appear or remain present during
the process of testing of that meter, then he shall not
take a defence that meter is tested behind his back and
his interest has been prejudiced on that count.
In view of above, the petitioner is directed to
remain present on the date when testing of that very
meter is fixed by the respondent Board as intimated to
him in advance. Respondent Board is directed that after
testing if finding arrived at is against the petitioner,
the same shall not be implemented qua the petitioner for
a period of 15 days from the date of communication to the
petitioner.
In view of above observations and directions, ld.
counsel Gupta does not press this petition at this stage.
Hence, petition stands disposed of as not pressed subject
to the observations and directions as above. No costs.
[ C.K. BUCH, J ]
*rawal