Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13961/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13961 of 2003
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 ?
=========================================================
VIKRAM
BUILDING PROJECTS PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RAVI KARNAVAT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DIPAK R DAVE for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 20/01/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2003 passed by the
respondent-Board in Appeal No. B-158/2003, whereby the appellate
authority has partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent
to revise the Special Bill by taking chargeable days as 154 and C/B
as 0.37 with connected load parameter.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company is having its
cement factory at GIDC Estate, Bhuj. Initially the petitioner-Company
took a load of 90 HP for running the factory. In the year 2000, the
petitioner made an application to the respondent for increase in the
load. Thereafter, again on 21.05.2002, the petitioner made another
application for increase of load from 90 HP to 121 HP. Pursuant
thereto, the respondent sanctioned the additional load and the same
was made effective from 25.06.2002.
2.1. On
12.09.2002, the respondent raided the premises of the petitioner,
whereby it was allegedly found that the petitioner had committed
theft of energy. Thereafter, the meter was sent for laboratory test.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent issued a bill of Rs.8,28,592/-
together with penalty. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal being Appeal No.B-158/2003 before the appellate
committee, after depositing 30% of bill amount. The appellate
committee vide order dated 22.07.2003 partly allowed the appeal and
issued a revised bill of Rs.5,40,760.68 paise. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It is the case of the petitioner that though the meter
was found in a proper working condition and simply because some
scratches were found on the female part of the seal, the appellate
committee has opined that the petitioner has tampered with the meter.
On perusal of the documents on record, it transpires that the MMB
seal was also tampered with apart from the scratches that were
found on the female part of the seal. The said tampering clearly
leads us to believe that the petitioner had tampered with the meter
body seal and had opened the meter and thereafter diverted the
electricity supply to other connection. In view of the above
irregularity, the authority found that the petitioner had committed
theft of energy.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and the documents on record, I am of the
opinion that the respondent was completely justified in partly
allowing the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, I find no reason to
interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
5. In
the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
reliefs, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top