{"id":93230,"date":"2011-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-13T19:00:06","modified_gmt":"2017-04-13T13:30:06","slug":"paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/15772\/2010\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 15772 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil  judge ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPASCHIM\nGUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER-Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKANABHAI\nJETHABHAI SOLANKI-Respondent\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDIPAK R DAVE for\nPetitioner \nMR MITESH L RANGRAS, MR VIJAY M SHUKLA for\nRespondent \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
By filing the present petition
\n\tunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
\n\tchallenged the order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Consumer
\n\tDisputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar, in Complaint No.153 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
The brief facts of the case are
\n\tthat the petitioner – Paschim Gujarat Vij Company is an
\n\tElectricity Company constituted under the provisions of the
\n\tElectricity Act. The respondent is a consumer, who was allotted an
\n\telectricity connection vide Consumer No.32822\/00214\/2 for
\n\tresidential purpose. The petitioner replaced the electricity meter
\n\tof the respondent-consumer on 26.01.2006 as the meter reading was
\n\tnot readable. The spot report (Rojkam) was prepared at the premises
\n\tof the respondent and the meter was wrapped, sealed and sent to the
\n\tLaboratory for testing. It emerged from the Laboratory Test Report
\n\tdated 18.04.2007 that the meter has been tampered with and a theft
\n\tof electricity has been committed. A Bill dated 21.04.2007 for
\n\tRs.891=71 ps. was issued to the respondent. However, the petitioner
\n\tdiscovered that there was a mistake in issuing the above bill as it
\n\thad not been issued as per the rechecked reading pursuant to the
\n\tLaboratory Report. The said mistake was pointed out in the audit,
\n\tafter which a revised bill was issued on 06.03.2009 for an amount of
\n\tRs.41,364\/-. The respondent-Consumer approached the Consumer
\n\tDisputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar (“the Forum” for
\n\tshort), by filing the abovementioned complaint, which has been
\n\tpartly-allowed by the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 and the bill
\n\tdated 06.03.2009 has been set aside. Further, costs of Rs.1,000\/-
\n\thave been imposed upon the petitioner-Company. It is in this factual
\n\tbackground that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of
\n\tthe present petition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Dipak R.Dave, learned advocate
\n\tfor the petitioner, has submitted that the Forum had no jurisdiction
\n\tto entertain the complaint made by the respondent as the bill dated
\n\t06.03.2009 has been issued for theft of electricity which came to
\n\tlight after the Laboratory Test Report dated 18.04.2007.  It is
\n\tfurther submitted that the bill dated 21.04.2007 for Rs.891=71 was
\n\tmistakenly issued as the rechecked reading was not taken into
\n\tconsideration. The mistake was pointed out in the audit and has been
\n\trectified by issuing bill dated 06.03.2009 for Rs.41,364\/-. That it
\n\tis a case of theft of electricity resulting from tampering of meter,
\n\tas is evident from the Laboratory Test Report, therefore, in view of
\n\tlaw laid down by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
\n\tdated 21.06.2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1759 of 2010 and
\n\tcognate matters, the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the
\n\tcomplaint. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended
\n\tthat as the bill in dispute has been issued on the basis of the
\n\tLaboratory Report for theft of energy, it is not a case of
\n\tdeficiency in service and this aspect has also been clarified by the
\n\tDivision Bench in the abovementioned judgment. Though there is an
\n\talternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Gujarat State
\n\tConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the impugned order of
\n\tthe Forum, the petitioner has approached this Court, as the impugned
\n\torder is without jurisdiction and the matter in issue is covered by
\n\tthe abovementioned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Mitesh L. Rangras, learned
\n\tadvocate for the respondent, has submitted that the complaint has
\n\tbeen filed for deficiency in service, as has been mentioned in the
\n\tcomplaint. Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of
\n\tsub-section (2) of section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“the
\n\tAct” for short), it is submitted that the bill in question has
\n\tbeen issued after a period of two years and is barred by the
\n\tprovisions of Section 56(2) of the Act. It is further contended that
\n\tthe petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.891=79 ps. as per
\n\tbill dated 21.04.2007 which has been issued pursuant to the
\n\tLaboratory Test Report dated 18.04.2007, therefore, it cannot be
\n\tsaid that the disputed bill dated 06.03.2009 for Rs.41,364\/- has
\n\tbeen issued pursuant to the Laboratory Test Report. The said bill
\n\thas rightly been challenged by the respondent by filing a complaint
\n\tbefore the Forum, which has rightly set aside the said bill. It is
\n\tfurther elaborated by the learned advocate for the respondent that
\n\tissuance of the second bill dated 06.03.2009, which is barred by the
\n\tprovisions of Section 56(2) of the Act, amounts to deficiency in
\n\tservice and does not pertain to theft of electricity, therefore, the
\n\tcase of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment of the
\n\tDivision Bench. On the strength of the above submissions, it
\n\tis prayed that the petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In rejoinder, the learned advocate
\n\tfor the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Section
\n\t56(2) of the Act would not be relevant in this case as the bill
\n\tdated 06.03.2009 has been issued within two years from the date of
\n\tthe Laboratory Test Report, dated 18.04.2007. Even otherwise, the
\n\tbill dated 06.03.2009 has been issued pursuant to the mistake
\n\tdiscovered in the audit and would, therefore, fall due on
\n\t06.03.2009. It cannot, therefore, be said that the complaint has
\n\tbeen filed before the Forum on the ground of deficiency of service.\n<\/p>\n
No other submissions have been
\n\tadvanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave heard the learned counsel for the respective
\n\tparties, perused the averments made in the petition and the
\n\tdocuments on record.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfirst issue that arises for consideration is whether the bill dated
\n\t06.03.2009 has been issued for theft of electricity, or not. It is
\n\tnot in dispute that, pursuant to a spot inspection, the electricity
\n\tmeter of the respondent-Consumer was removed from his premises on
\n\t26.01.2006. A spot report (Rojkam) was prepared and the meter was
\n\twrapped, sealed and sent to the Laboratory for testing. A copy of
\n\tthe Laboratory Test Report dated 18.04.2007 is available at
\n\tAnnexure-C to the petition. It indicates several discrepancies that
\n\twere found, namely: there was no seal on the body of the meter,
\n\tthere was no MMB TC seal, in the internal component of the meter,
\n\tthe CC and PC were burnt, and the disc dial showed marks of
\n\tscratches. The result of the Laboratory Test showed that the meter
\n\twas burnt and there was theft of energy. Pursuant to the Laboratory
\n\tReport, a bill dated 21.04.2007 for an amount of Rs.891=71 ps. was
\n\tissued to the respondent, which
\n\twas paid by him. An audit took place during which it was realized
\n\tthat the bill dated 21.04.2007 had been mistakenly issued, and that
\n\tit had not been issued on the re-checked reading, pursuant to the
\n\tLaboratory Report. Another bill dated 06.03.2009 was issued to the
\n\trespondent for an amount of Rs.41,364\/-, which is the bill in
\n\tquestion. It is clearly mentioned on the said bill that it has been
\n\tissued pursuant to the Laboratory Report. The Laboratory Report
\n\tconcludes, after inspection of the meter, that the meter has been
\n\tburnt and there has been a theft of energy. The bill dated
\n\t06.03.2009, has been issued on the re-checked reading which escaped
\n\tnotice at the time of issuance of the earlier bill dated 21.04.2007
\n\tfor Rs.891=71 ps. The bill dated 06.03.2009 clearly states that it
\n\thas been issued pursuant to the Laboratory Report dated 18.04.2007
\n\twhich concludes that there has been a theft of energy. It is
\n\tapparent that the bill dated 06.03.2009 is for alleged theft\/
\n\tunauthorized use of energy.\n<\/p>\n
At this stage, it would be
\n\trelevant to advert to the relevant provisions of the Electricity
\n\tAct, 2003. Section 126 of the Act is reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
“126.\tAssessment,-\n<\/p>\n
 (1)\tIf on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection
\nof the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or
\nused, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the
\nassessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is
\nindulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally
\nassess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by
\nsuch person or by any other person benefited by such use.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe order of
\nprovisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation
\nor possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as
\nmay be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe person, on whom
\nan order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to
\nfile objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before
\nthe assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable
\nopportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of
\nassessment within thirty days form the date of service of such order
\nof provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such
\nperson.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tAny person served
\nwith the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment
\nand deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days
\nof service of such provisional assessment order upon him.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tIf the assessing
\nofficer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of
\nelectricity has taken place, the assessment                          <\/p>\n
                  shall be made for the entire period during which
\nsuch unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however,
\nthe period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has
\ntaken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a
\nperiod of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tThe assessment
\nunder this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff
\napplicable for the relevant category of services specified in
\nsub-section (3).\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- For the
\npurposes of this section-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t“assessing
\nofficer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or
\nlicensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State
\nGovernment;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t“unauthorized
\nuse of electricity” means the usage of electricity –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tby any artificial
\nmeans; or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tby a means not
\nauthorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or<\/p>\n
(iii) through a
\ntampered meter; or<\/p>\n
(iv)\tfor the purpose
\nother than for which the usage of  electricity was authorised; or<\/p>\n
(v)\tfor the premises or
\nareas other than those for which the supply of electricity was
\nauthorized.”\n<\/p>\n
Section
\n\t135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, may now be referred to, which as
\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n
“135.\tTheft of
\nelectricity,- (1) Whoever, dishonestly,-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\ttaps, makes or
\ncauses to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under
\nwater lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a
\nlicensee or supplier, as the case may be; or<\/p>\n
(b)\ttampers a meter,
\ninstalls or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer,
\nloop connection or any other device or method which interferes with
\naccurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric
\ncurrent or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is
\nstolen or wasted; or<\/p>\n
(c)\tdamages or destroys
\nan electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows
\nany of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the
\nproper or accurate metering of electricity; or<\/p>\n
(d)\tuses electricity
\nthrough a tampered meter; or<\/p>\n
(e)\tuses electricity
\nfor the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was
\nauthorised,<\/p>\n
so as to abstract or
\nconsume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for
\na term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that in a
\ncase where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted
\nabstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tdoes not exceed 10
\nkilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than
\nthree times the financial  gain on account of such theft or
\nelectricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the
\nfine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on
\naccount of such theft of electricity;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\texceeds 10
\nKilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than
\nthree time the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity
\nand in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence
\nshall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which
\nmay extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the
\nfinancial gain on account of such theft of electricity:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided further than
\nin the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where
\nthe load abstracted, consumed, or use or attempted abstraction or
\nattempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such
\nperson shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity
\nfor a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend
\nto two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of
\nelectricity for that period from any other source or generating
\nstation:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided also that if
\nit is provided that any artificial means  or means not authorized by
\nthe Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the
\nabstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it
\nshall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any
\nabstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly
\ncaused by such consumer.\n<\/p>\n
(1A)\tWithout prejudice
\nto the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case
\nmay be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately
\ndisconnect the supply of electricity :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that only
\nsuch officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the
\npurpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the
\nlicensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the
\nrank so authorized shall disconnect the supply line of electricity :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided further that
\nsuch officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall
\nlodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such
\noffence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hour
\nfrom the time of such disconnect :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided also that the
\nlicensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of
\nthe assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to
\nlodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this
\nclause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight
\nhours of such deposit or payment;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tAny officer of the
\nlicensee or supplier, as the case may be, authorised in this behalf
\nby the State Government may –\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tenter, inspect,
\nbreak open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to
\nbelieve that electricity has been or is being, used unauthorisedly;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tsearch, seize and
\nremove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator
\nor article which has been or is being, used for unauthorised use of
\nelectricity;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\texamine or seize
\nany books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be
\nuseful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence
\nunder sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such
\nbooks of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or
\ntake extracts therefrom in his presence.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe occupant of the
\nplace of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present
\nduring the search and a list of all things seized in the course of
\nsuch search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or
\nperson who shall sing the list:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that no
\ninspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic
\npremises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in
\nthe presence of an adult male member occupying such premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4)\tThe
\n\tprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
\n\trelating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to
\n\tsearches and seizure under this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter
\n\texamining the relevant provisions of law and several judgments, the
\n\tDivision Bench, in judgment dated 21.06.2011 rendered in Letters
\n\tPatent Appeal No.1759 of 2010 and cognate matters, has clearly held
\n\tthat in a case where the bill is raised alleging indulgence in
\n\tunauthorised use of electricity by a person under Section 126 of the
\n\tElectricity Act, 2003, or measures or the penal action taken for the
\n\toffence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in the
\n\tabsence of any provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
\n\tto entertain any complaint on any such action, the petitions
\n\tpreferred by the consumer are not maintainable before the Consumer
\n\tDisputes Redressal Forum. The relevant extract of the judgment of
\n\tthe Division Bench is quoted hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
“41.\tIn view of
\nthe aforesaid discussion, we summarize our findings as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe finding of the
\nlearned Single Judge that there is a third forum of appeal under
\nSection 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in this type of cases under
\nSection 126 or Section 135, is incorrect and does not lay down a
\ncorrect law.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe jurisdiction of
\nthe Consumer Court in the matter of deficiency in service on the part
\nof the Electricity Company is not ousted in view of the provisions of
\nthe Electricity Act, 2003.  The finding of the learned Single Judge
\nto that extent in general that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction
\nto entertain complaints in respect of the matter pertaining to supply
\nof electricity against the Electricity Company is incorrect and does
\nnot lay down a correct law.\n<\/p>\n
 (c)\tIn a case where
\nthe bill is raised alleging indulgence in unauthorizes use of
\nelectricity by a person under Section 126 of the Electricity Act,
\n2003 or the measures or the penal action taken for the offence under
\nSection 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in absence of any provision
\nmade under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain any
\ncomplaint or any such action, the petitions preferred by the consumer
\nare not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.\n<\/p>\n
 42.\tFor the reasons
\naforesaid, we hold that  the Consumer Dispute Redressal
\nCommission have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Consumer
\nDisputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to try cases against
\nassessment made under Section 126 or theft of energy under  Section
\n135 and the learned Single Judge rightly interfered with those orders
\nand set aside the orders.  For the reason aforesaid, no  interference
\nis called for against the impugned common judgment rendered by the
\nlearned Single Judge.  In absence of any merit, the appeals and the
\nCivil Applications are dismissed, but there shall be no order as to
\ncosts.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(emphasis
\n\tsupplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\torder to ascertain whether the case of the respondent pertained to
\n\tdeficiency in service caused by the petitioner-Company so as to
\n\tjustify filing of the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act,
\n\t1987, it would be fruitful to advert to the definition of
\n\t“deficiency” as stated in Section 2(1)(g) of the
\n\tConsumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“2(1)(g)\t“deficiency”\n<\/p>\n
means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality,
\nnature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained
\nby or under any law for the time being in force or has been
\nundertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
\notherwise in relation to any service.”\n<\/p>\n
A
\n\tcopy of the complaint made by the respondent before the Forum is
\n\tannexed as Annexure-E to the petition. Though it is stated to be a
\n\tcomplaint regarding deficiency of service, the prayers made by the
\n\trespondent clearly reveal that the challenge is to the bill dated
\n\t06.03.2009 which has been issued after the consumer has paid the
\n\tbill dated 21.04.2007 issued pursuant to the Laboratory Test Report.
\n\tAs stated earlier, the bill dated 06.03.2009 clearly states that it
\n\thas been issued pursuant to the same Laboratory Report. The said
\n\tLaboratory Report concludes that there has been a theft of
\n\telectricity, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any
\n\tdeficiency of service in issuing the bill dated 06.03.2009. It is
\n\tnot the case of the respondent that there is any shortcoming, fault
\n\tor inadequacy in the nature and quality of service that is required
\n\tto be maintained by the petitioner-Company under the Act. The bill
\n\tin question
\n\thas clearly been raised alleging that there is theft or unauthorized
\n\tuse of electricity by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe above factual background and in view of the principles of law
\n\tenunciated by the Division Bench, as reproduced hereinabove, the
\n\tConsumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the
\n\trespondent-Consumer. As the issue is regarding alleged unauthorized
\n\tuse or theft of electricity, the question whether the bill has been
\n\tissued within a period of two years as per the requirement of
\n\tSection 56(2) of the Act, would not be relevant insofar as the Forum
\n\tis concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\tthe aforestated reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
\n\tdated 07.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
\n\tForum, Jamnagar, in Complaint No.153 of 2009, is quashed and set
\n\taside. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha
\nKumari, J.)<\/p>\n
(sunil)<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 Author: Abhilasha Kumari, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/15772\/2010 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15772 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPaschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-13T13:30:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-13T13:30:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3392,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-13T13:30:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-13T13:30:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-13T13:30:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011"},"wordCount":3392,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011","name":"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-13T13:30:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paschim-vs-kanabhai-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paschim vs Kanabhai on 8 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}