Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15237/2010 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15237 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd/-
=======================================================
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 ?
=======================================================
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER
(O
& M) DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
M/S
ACME CHEM LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MS
LILU K BHAYA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR BM VAISHNAV for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR HIMANSHU KP ATEL AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 17/02/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Dakshin Gujarat
Vij Company Ltd., for the prayer that the Judgment & Order dated
26.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector &
Appellate Authority (South Zone), Vadodara in Appeal No.01/2009-2010
may be quashed and set aside on the grounds set out in the petition.
The
brief facts narrated in the petition are with regard to consumption
of the electricity by the respondent no.1 for the purpose of
construction. The unit was set up in Plot No.412 and, thereafter,
with the change in the name of the Company, it was also proposed to
have Plot No.413. The intimation was also given to the
petitioner-Company that some work is being carried on.
As
reflected from the impugned order, the Junior Engineer as well as
Executive Engineer had visited the premises of the respondent no.1
and had not found anything objectionable or have not reported any
irregularity and, hence, they had not taken any steps. However
subsequently, as could be found from the assessment and the bill
dated 24.02.2009(Annexure-B) which has been issued, the assessment
was made, which has been challenged before the respondent
no.2-authority by the respondent no.1-Consumer. The respondent
no.2-authority has discussed in the impugned order in detail after
considering the rival view points and passed the impugned order
referring to the calculation, which has been arrived at. It is
referred to in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy General
Manager of the respondent no.1 that as per the provisions of Section
126 of the Electricity Act, the assessment has been made, however,
the petitioner-Company has not been able to point out as to the
irregularity, which is alleged to have been made or committed where
the officers of the petitioner-Company had visited the premises and
they have not taken any steps. Moreover, while passing the impugned
order, the respondent no.2-authority has taken care to direct the
respondent no.1 to deposit 50% of the bill amount. The method of
calculation, which has been arrived at, is also reflected, which
cannot be said to be erroneous as the respondent no.2-authority,
which is fully conversant with the technical aspect, has arrived at
this assessment.
The
reliance placed by the learned counsel, Ms.Bhaya upon the order of
this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.546 of 2010 in Special
Civil Application No.679 of 2009 with Civil Application No.3118 of
2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.546 of 2010 dated 11.05.2010 will
have no application to the present case as the facts were totally
different as there it was specifically observed with regard to the
unauthorized use of power and dishonesty, which is not the case
here.
Therefore,
the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
It
goes without saying that if the amount in excess of the amount
mentioned in the impugned order is paid, same shall be refunded to
the respondent no.1-Consumer.
Sd/-
(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil
Top