Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/466220/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4662 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4664 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4666 of 2008
=========================================================
JAYESH
C. DHANGAR DEPUTY RNGINEER (O&M) - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHANDRAVATIBEN
MAHESHBHAI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
LILU K BHAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR ASHUTOSH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
BHAVIKA KOTECHA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 IN SCA 4662/2008,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 01/09/2008
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
As
in all the matters, common questions arise for consideration, they
are being considered by this common order.
The
petitioner Electricity Company, by the present petitions, has
challenged the order passed by the Electrical Inspector and the
appellate Authority, whereby he has reduced the bill on the basis of
the actual consumption by applying difference and the penalty is
proportionately reduced to that extent.
Heard
Ms.Bhaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Bhatt, learned
Counsel appearing for the private parties and Ms.Kotecha, learned
AGP for the Electrical Inspector and the appellate Authority.
The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it was not
open to the appellant authority to reduce the amount of charges per
unit by giving ‘set off’ to the rates already paid by the person
concerned for industrial connection, nor was it open to the
appellate authority to apply penalty at 0.5 time i.e. 50% as against
1.5 times penalty, which is prescribed by the statute and,
therefore, it was submitted that there are errors committed apparent
on the face of record, which may be interfered with.
Whereas
on behalf of the private respondents, the contention raised is that
it was a bonafide mistake of the employee of the respondent No.1
and, therefore, keeping in view the said circumstances as it was a
bonafide mistake, the power is exercised.
Having
considered the above, it deserves to be recorded that the
consumption of the units as provided under Sub-section (5) is by way
of presumption and, therefore, if it is found by the Electrical
Inspector/Appellate Authority, otherwise, there is no absolute
proposition that it must be charged for six months, preceding the
date of the inspection. Instead of the same, in the present case,
the period counted is of six months by the appellate authority.
Further,
in Sub-section (6) of Section 126, assessment is to be made at the
rate equal to 1.5 times of the tariff applicable, but while applying
the tariff, if the tariff rate already paid is given ‘set off’ and
keeping in view the proportion of the difference between the tariff
of the industrial use and the tariff of the commercial use, the
penalty applied is at 0.5 times, since it is found that it was a
bonafide mistake of the consumer, such an approach on the part of
the appellate Authority cannot be said as perverse, which may call
for interference by this Court in exercise of the power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In
view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence,
rejected.
1.9.2008 (Jayant
Patel, J.)
vinod
Top