Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4866/2009 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4866 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 13715 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4866 of 2009
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 ?
=========================================================
DAKSHIN
GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SATMAX
DIESEL POWER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SP HASURKAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KETAN D SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 13/01/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 03.03.2009 passed in Appeal No.7526/2009,
preferred by respondent no.1 herein, by the appellate authority and
Chief Electrical Inspector of the petitioners, whereby, the said
appeal was partly allowed and the supplementary bill issued by the
petitioners to respondent no.1 was quashed and set aside.
2.0 The
facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are
as under;
2.1 The
petitioner is an Electricity Company duly constituted under the
provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Industry (Reorganization and
Regulation) Act, 2003. In
2.2 the
year 2004, respondent no.1 herein had applied to the
petitioner-Company for the grant of electricity supply to its
industrial unit situated in Surat. On 24.12.2007 the electrical
installation in the industrial unit of respondent no.1 was checked by
the inspecting squad of the petitioner-Company and on such
inspection, it was found that respondent no.1 was using electricity
supply unauthorizedly for the purpose of running water pumps to draw
water from underground and supply the same to different industrial
units engaged in the process of textile industry.
2.3 Therefore,
a supplementary bill, u/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was
issued to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 submitted a representation
against the said supplementary bill issued by the petitioner-Company.
However, the said representation was rejected by the petitioner.
2.4 Against
the said order, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority of the petitioner-Company. The said appeal was
partly allowed vide the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
3.0 Mr.
S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted
that on inspection of the electrical installation of respondent
no.1’s unit, it was found that respondent no.1 was using only one
water pump, as against four water pumps and thereby, was
unauthorizedly using electricity supply for three water pumps.
3.1 Learned
counsel has further submitted that the appellate authority of the
petitioner-Company has misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003 more particularly, Section 126 therein and has,
thereby, committed serious error in quashing the supplementary bill
issued to respondent no.1. Hence, the impugned order passed by the
appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.0 Learned
counsel for the respondent has submitted that the provisional as well
as the final bill were calculated as per the L.T.P.-1 category and
not the commercial rate. The unit of respondent no.1 was not found to
be using the electricity supply unauthorizedly and therefore, the
appellate authority has rightly quashed the supplementary bill issued
to respondent no.1. Hence, this Court may not interfere with the
impugned order passed by the appellate authority of the
petitioner-Company.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It is not in dispute that in the industrial unit of
respondent no.1, L.T.P.-1 tariff has been installed and that the
respondent no.1 was using submersible pump in the said electrical
installation. In the checking sheet prepared by the inspecting
authority of the petitioner-Company, a bore-well was found to have
been constructed at about 100 ft. away from the industrial premise of
respondent no.1 and that from the said bore-well water was being
utilized for industrial purpose.
6. It
appears from the record that while granting permission to respondent
no.1-unit to increase the load capacity, no inspection was carried
out on the basis of the Test Report, meaning thereby, that the
procedure was not followed by the petitioner-Company and in spite of
that a supplementary bill came to be issued to respondent no.1. The
respondent no.1 was found to have been paying the bills towards the
consumption arising from the usage of the pump installed in the said
bore-well regularly. Therefore, in my opinion, the supplementary bill
issued by the petitioner-Company is contrary to the provisions of law
and the appellate authority has rightly set aside the same.
7. It
would not be out of place to state that an endeavour was made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners to point out that the appellate
authority has misinterpreted the provision of Section 126 of the said
Act while passing the impugned order. However, it may be noted that
no contention qua the same was raised before the appellate authority
at the time of hearing of the appeal nor any Notice, as contemplated
u/s.126(4) of the said Act, was issued to respondent no.1. Therefore,
it is not open to the petitioners to raise the said contention at
this stage. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by
and the findings arrived at by the appellate authority in the
impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this
petition.
8. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief stands vacated.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
ORDER
IN CIVIL APPLICATION
Since
the main matter has been dismissed, this application is allowed. Rule
is made absolute.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top