Bhagirath Bhojabhai Odedara vs Paschim Gujarat VIJ Co. Ltd. and Another

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner, by way of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed as under:-

(A) Be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

(B) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order in the nature of Mandamus and thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the issued bill at Annexure-"A" to this petition by the respondent No. 1 and impugned order at Annexure-B to this petition by the respondent No. 2 dated 30/12/2003.

(C) Be pleased to pass any other further order/s as are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the respondent No. 2 on 30th December, 2003 only partly allowing the petitioner''s appeal against the revised bill and rejecting his submissions qua other issues.

The facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled-out from the memo of the petition deserve to be set-out as under.

The petitioner had a Stone Crusher unit situated near Bamanbore in Rajkot District. The petitioner obtained electricity supply connection on 15th December, 1999 to 18th December, 2000. Thereafter, as per his submission, on account of non-payment of charges, the supply was disconnected. The supply and connection were reconnected on 18th December, 2000. The meter was taken and was sent for laboratory inspection. The petitioner did not receive any notice though alleged to have been sent. The meter was inspected ex-parte on 7th June, 2002 whereunder the inspecting authority found tempering on the MMB locks and seal, which resulted into raising of bill for alleged electricity abstraction without payment of charges. The petitioner preferred appeal, which came to be decided by the authority and while allowing it partly, the Appellate Committee of the respondent ordered revision in the bill, as the appeal was not accepted in its totality. The petitioner was aggrieved on account of order passed by the authority on 30th December, 2003 and preferred this petition with the prayers mentioned hereinabove.

Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Committee ought to have considered the fact that from 15th December, 1999 to 18th December, 2000 i.e. the date of reconnection, there was no electricity supply. Therefore, there was no possibility of any attempt of theft. It was contended on the part of the petitioner that alongwith the disconnection on 15th December, 2000 the transformer and service cable were also taken away by the officer of the respondent.

Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that as per the checking-sheet, the locks and seal on the meter were found to be intact, though there was some difference in No. 1 lock, which could have been on account of typographical error. The supplementary bill could not have been warranted.

Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that as per the laboratory report dated 7th June, 2002 four meter body, seals and mechanism of meter and meter load were found to be "OK", which ruled-out contention of the respondent qua theft of electricity energy.

Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that gap of time between removal of meter and it''s examination in the laboratory is of about 1 � years. This time gap should have been taken into consideration by the appellate authority for accepting the contention of the petitioner qua lack of veracity in the allegation or version of the respondents for raising the supplementary electricity bill.

Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that the appellate authority ought to have considered various factors pleaded qua non possibility of electricity consumption on staggering days, public holidays etc. The original bill of 171 days was infact, revised and it was set for 183 days and according to petitioner, it should have been only 143 days. This factor ought to have considered by the authority and non-consideration and non-granting of relief on those grounds, vitiates the order impugned in this petition.

Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that not only the committee did not consider the staggering days etc., but also did not taken into consideration that the connection of electricity supply was from the rural feeder, sub-division of Rajkot and therefore, the supply could not have been continuously allowed as it is known fact that from this feeder, this energy is available only for 5 to 6 hours in a day. All these factors should have weight with the authorities i.e. the Appellate Committee and the appeal of the petitioner ought to have been allowed in its totality.

Learned advocate for the respondent - electricity company invited this Court''s attention to the affidavit-in-reply and accompanying annexures annexed thereto and submitted that Appellate Committee has not committed any error so as to call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned advocate for the respondent - electricity company, invited this Court''s attention to page No. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 to support her contention that the version of the petitioner qua removal of transformer and cable is incorrect, as the documents accompanying the affidavit-in-reply, would clearly indicate that the bill raised was for the days for which the connection was available or the transformer had not been removed. The Appellate Committee''s order contains consideration of Appellate Committee, which indicate that the Appellate Committee partly accepted the contention qua the period for which the bill should have been raised and ordered revision in the bill, which has been accordingly carried-out. The order of the Appellate Committee, therefore, needs no interference of this Court and the petition is required to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the learned advocate for the parties and perused the petition, annexures, reply and documents annexed therewith. The fact remains to be noted that the accompanying documents with the reply clearly indicate that the petitioner is not correct in contending that the transformer was removed as alleged along with the disconnection. The accompanying documents of affidavit-in-reply read with the averments made on oath, which have been remained uncontroverted by and large, clearly indicate that the Appellate Committee''s order was just and proper, which therefore, need not be interfered in any manner. The Appellate Committee has recorded its findings qua tempering with the MMB locks and seal, which in my view cannot be said to be in any manner perverse, so as to call for any interference. The position of law as it existed then, would persuade this Court in not carrying out any further probing into the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Committee for arriving at its satisfaction recorded by the Appellate Committee would not be open to be further examination on the plea, which have not been justified or rather belied on account of accompanying documents of the affidavit-in-reply. The Appellate Committee has clearly recorded its finding qua even consumption and days to be counted for raising bill. The said findings have resulted into giving some respite and relief to the petitioner and therefore, this Court has in overall facts and circumstances of the case, reason for not interfering with the order impugned. The fact of tempering with the locks of MMB and fact of transformers were not removed despite disconnection as alleged and the reconnection factors, would persuade this Court to came to a conclusion that the order of the Appellate Committee being just and proper and not in any manner erroneous. The same is not required to be interfered with. The Court is also of the view that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the electricity company could have sent notice to his residential address. The notices have been sent, as could be seen from the inspection report and enough time is granted for availing the opportunity to depute someone for inspection. The company cannot be expected to remain ideal for want of availability for the representative of the consumer or ex-consumer. The plea of belated checking is also therefore, not required to be examined further. Suffice it to say that the order impugned as not shown to be unjust and improper, the petition fails and is hereby rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule discharged. Interim relief if any, shall stand vacated.