Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5232/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5232 of 2006
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 ?
=========================================================
ALIVE
- Petitioner(s)
Versus
UTTAR
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD THROUGH DY.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BM VAISHNAV for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/01/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the supplementary
bills issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Company and also the
order dated 08.02.2006 passed by the appellate authority of the
respondent-Company, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner was
rejected.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged
in the business of manufacture of cosmetics and was utilizing the
electrical energy supplied by the respondent-Company.
3. On
07.07.2005 the checking squad of the respondent-Company inspected the
meter installed at the factory premises of the petitioner-firm.
Pursuant to the said checking, a supplementary bill dated 15.07.2005
was issued to the petitioner-firm asking to pay an amount of
Rs.1,29,623.49. Against the same, the petitioner-firm filed its
objection vide letter dated 22.07.2005. However, the petitioner was
served with the final assessment vide order dated 30.09.2005
directing to pay the amount in question.
4. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority of the respondent-Company. However, the said
appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 08.02.2006. Hence, this
petition.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. At the relevant time, the petitioner-firm was allotted 2.0
K.W of energy, which was the sanctioned load. However, on inspection,
the total load was found to be 11.185 K.W., meaning thereby, that
there was an excess load of 9.185 K.W., which was being used
unauthorizedly. Therefore, the petitioner-firm was served with the
impugned supplementary bill. Apart from that in the proceedings
before the appellate authority of the respondent-Company, the
petitioner has admitted the fact that the alleged irregularity had
been done but, unknowingly.
6. Looking
to the facts of the case and the documents on record, I am of the
view that the respondent-Company was completely justified in issuing
the impugned supplementary bill to the petitioner. Hence, I find no
reasons to interfere in this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top