Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7856/2004 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7856 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
EMVEE
SYNTHETICS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SOUTH
GUJARAT VIJ.CO.LTD. & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SN SINHA for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE NOT
RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 01/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner has challenged the supplementary bill issued by the
respondent-electricity company for an amount of Rs.11,22,318/- on the
premise that there was tampering with the meter by the petitioner and
theft of electricity. On 31.1.2004, high tension electricity
connection supplied to the petitioner was checked by the officers of
the respondent-Electricity Company. The meter was disconnected,
sealed and sent for laboratory testing. Laboratory report indicated
some irregularities. Copy of the report is produced at Annexure `IV’
with the petition. Electricity Company issued the bill of
Rs.11,22,318/- applying standard formula in case of theft of
electricity. Petitioner challenged the bill before the Appellate
Committee. Appellate Committee, however, by impugned order dated
3.5.2004, dismissed the appeal and upheld the demand of the Company.
Previously
when the matter was heard by my learned predecessor on 17.10.2005,
following order was passed :
“1. The
matter is substantially heard. Following points emerge as a result of
hearing;
2. The
findings of the Appellate Authority regarding the laboratory
inspection report clearly support the irregularities found at the
time of checking and the same is contrary to the evidence on record.
Apart from that on the meter being changed, the consumption of the
petitioner had remained the same which was recorded prior to the date
of inspection.
3. However,
since Mr.S.N.Sinha requests for time to produce additional evidence
on record, as a last chance, S.O. to 25.10.2005.”
Learned
counsel for the Electricity Company candidly stated that there is no
additional evidence available. I have, therefore, heard learned
advocates for the parties on the basis of material on record.
Learned
counsel Ms.Mauna Bhatt for the petitioner relied heavily on the
report of the laboratory to contend that the main seals were found
intact. The report suggested that there was no tampering of the
meter. Conclusion of theft of electricity, therefore, was
impermissible. She also relied on the report of the consumer dated
3.4.2004 in which he had given figures of consumption month-wise
immediately before and after the date of checking. On such basis, she
contended that there was no unusual increase in demand of the
electricity energy after installation of new meter also.
On
the other hand, learned counsel Mr.Sinha for the Electricity Company
opposed the petition contending that the authority of the Electricity
Company as well as the Appellate Committee have examined all factual
aspects and found that there was theft of electricity. No
interference is, therefore, called for. He submitted that once
question of theft is established, the charges to be levied on the
consumer depend on the formula and are not discretionary.
Having
thus heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused
the documents on record, I find that the laboratory report clearly
suggested that the seal on the meter was intact. There was no
tampering on the company’s seal. Both the seals were found
untampered. Upon checking of the meter also, no drop in consumption
was recorded. In the concluding portion of the report, however, it
was recorded that the consumer had tampered with the plastic seal on
the meter box. The paper seal was also found torn. The report
unequivocally stated that there is no other irregularity found to
have been committed. These findings, if viewed along with the
consumption pattern of the consumer just before and after
installation of the new meter, would establish that there was no case
of theft of electricity. When the laboratory report itself suggested
that the inner seals were intact, that there was no tampering on both
the seals on the meter applied by the company and when the report
clearly stated that no other irregularity was noticed, in my opinion,
the electricity company erred in jumping to the conclusion that the
petitioner had committed theft of electricity by tampering with the
meter. To repeat, the report of the laboratory appreciated in light
of the consumer pattern would convince me that there was no case of
theft of electricity. As noted, the petitioner has given the details
of such consumption for the period during June, 2003 to April, 2004
in his representation to the respondents. Such figures read as
follows :
R.No.
Month
Date
of noting the reading
Total
units used
Production
meter
1.
June-03
20.6.2003
28696
99649-50
2.
July-03
20.7.03
26090
1,13,974-00
3.
Aug.-03
19.8.03
26345
1,09,241-00
4.
Sept.-03
20-9-03
29603
1,04,219-50
5.
Oct.-03
19-10-03
25269
1,04,394-75
6.
Nov.-03
19-11-03
25580
92662-00
7.
Dec.03
20-12-03
29248
94242-00
8.
Jan.04
19-1-04
26835
90956-00
9.
Feb.04
17-2-2004
11825
old meter
9691
new meter
21516
86707-00
10.
March.04
20-3-2004
27398
90959-50
11.
April.04
17-4-2004
24191
85600-00
The
above figures are not disputed by the respondents.
The
Appellate Committee also proceeded more or less on the assumption
that there was theft of electricity. In my opinion, it did not
appreciate the report of the laboratory and other evidence on record.
In
the result, the Appellate Order dated 3.5.2004 as well as the demand
under the provisional bill are quashed. The amount already deposited
with the petitioner at the time of filing appeal shall be given
credit for in the future bills. Rule is made absolute with no order
as to costs.
(
Akil Kureshi, J )
srilatha
Top