AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Mitesh L.Rangras, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1. With consent of the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, with below mentioned relief/s:-
" 8(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 12.11.2024 issued by respondent No.1 which is at annexure-A
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the notice and supplementary bill dated 07.11.2024 issued by the respondent PGVCL Company which is at annexure - I;
(D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 1 to immediately provide electricity connection/meter being Meter Serial No. PT682285 (Customer No. 60259/15435/0) and provide electricity power to the petitioner by quashing the illegal action of respondent No. 1;
(E) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased that, pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, direct the respondent no. 1 to provide electricity connection/meter being Meter Serial No. PT682285 (Customer No. 60259/15435/0) and provide electricity power to the petitioner upon such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;
(F) Grant such other and further relief as this court may think fit in the interest of justice."
The facts giving rise to present petition are that the present petitioner is the owner of a Non Agricultural land being Survey (Block) No. 147p1/1 admeasuring 2432 Square Meter located in Village: Lakhanka, Tal: Ghogha, Dist Bhavnagar. The land is being used by one Jentibhai Kantibhai Chuahan since 2022. C0114. The petitioner is the customer of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited being customer No. 602259/15435/0 and owner enjoys 3 phase electricity connection/meter vide Meter Serial No. PT682285 with power load of 30 KW in the premises of his land. The petitioner and the land user have consistently paid electricity bills to Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) on time. There have been no prior complaints or defaults against the owner or the user.
3.1 On 17.10.2024, a fault occurred in one phase of the electricity meter, leaving the petitioner without power. The petitioner submits that out of 3 phases one phase was burned due to some electric shock circuit. Therefore, on the same day the petitioner had made registered a complaint being Complaint No. 119682 at PGVCL Fault Centre, City 2 Division, Bhavnagar stating the facts that there is a power cut in his meter so kindly send technicians as soon as possible but no one had visited. The petitioner had made several calls and made requests to send some technician so that they may not have to suffer. Thereafter, on 27.10.2024, the petitioner had made one more complaint being complaint No. 119905 before the same department so that they may come and fix the issue at earliest.
3.2 After making several requests and phone calls to the concerned department one person came to see that what exact the issue was. The present petitioner was facing big loss in his business due to inaction of PGVCL Company therefore he had warned the concerned persons that he will file a case against them before the consumer forum therefore kindly resolve the issue at earliest. Thereafter keeping grudge of the same, on 07.11.2024 at 3:25 A.M midnight, one team/squad from PGVCL Company came for checking and disconnected the electric wires/power and uninstalled electric meter belonging to the petitioner. and the concerned officers had issued notice dated 07.11.2024 under section 135 of The Electricity Act, 2003 alleging that one Jentibhai Kanjibhai Chuahan is using the electricity meter and the petitioner is stealing electricity by directly installing wires in main line (Poles).
3.3 Thereafter, on same day i.e. 07.11.2024, the petitioner, through his land user had issued legal notice through advocate to the concerned officer i.e. Deputy Ijner of PGVCL Company at Ghogha, Bhavnagar stating that he has not acted in manner as alleged against him and therefore kindly return the meter and electricity connection so that he may not have to face further loss.
3.4 Thereafter, on 09.11.2024, the police Inspector, GUVNL Police Station, Bhavnagar had issued notice dated 09.11.2024 Under Sec. 35(3)(6) of BNSS to the present petitioner stating to remain present within 7 days of receipt of notice and amount of Stealing Electricity with compounding charges i.e. Rupees 23,60,367.71/- was mentioned.
3.5 Thereafter, on 07.11.2024 the supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 22,15,595.71/- was issued by Deputy Engineer (O&M) PGVCL Ghogha Sub-Division in the name of the present petitioner and last date for payment was showed 14.11.2024 being bill no. 189817 along with notice.
3.6 In view of the above facts the petitioner has preferred petition against the action of the respondent.
Heard Mr. V.A. Zala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mitesh L. Rangras, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents of removing the electricity connection / meter is illegal, against the provision of law, He has submitted that the respondents disconnected the electricity connection and imposed penalties without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. He has submitted that he was not granted any opportunity of hearing by the PGVCL company and without following due procedure of law, the respondents have acted in illegal manner which has caused huge loss to the petitioner as he was held liable for the illegal theft of electricity.
5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in several judgments of High Courts the courts have expressed their views that the opportunity of hearing should be given to the person who is facing accusation of theft of electricity and the supplementary bill should be assessed accordingly as given under regulations 7.5.6 of the regulations of 2005. However, in present case without following any due procedure the supplementary bill was issued.
5.2 In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner urges before the Court that present petition may be allowed and impugned notice dated 12.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.1 and the supplementary bill dated 7.11.2024 issued by respondent PGVCL may be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. He has submitted that the petitioner does not want to pay the amount as prescribed under the provisions of law and to evade the payment, present petition is filed, as same is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, considering the conduct of the petitioner, present petition does not deserve to be dismissed.
6.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that when a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of, but in present case the petitioner is overreaching the same and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
6.2 In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent urges before the Court that present petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.
I have perused the relevant documents and material placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned notice as well as supplementary bill issued by the authority.
It appears that an earlier petition was filed on behalf of the tenant of the present petitioner, challenging a similar bill, being Special Civil Application No. 17676 of 2024. The said petition came to be withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 01.01.2025. No liberty was granted by this Court to file a fresh petition or to initiate appropriate proceedings. However, under the garb of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the very same order, which is not permissible in law, as it is hit by the principle of res judicata.
The earlier petition having been withdrawn without liberty, the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Anis Ahmad reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"35. From a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections 135 to 140, it is clear that while acts of unauthorized use of electricity attracts civil consequence of penal charge of electricity, twice the rate of electricity, for which assessment is made by assessing ofiicer under Section 126; the very same acts of unauthorized use of electricity, constitute ofiences under Section 135 to 140 for which sentence and fine has been prescribed.
As per Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Special Courts are to be constituted for speedy trial for the ofiences referred to in Sections 135 to 140. The said Section reads as follows:
"153. Constitution of Special Courts.-
(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of ofiences referred to in [sections 135 to 140 and section 150], by notification in the Ofiicial Gazette, constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification.
(2) A Special Court shall consist of a single Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he was, immediately before such appointment, an Additional District and Sessions Judge.
(4) Where the ofiice of the Judge of a Special Court is vacant, or such Judge is absent from the ordinary place of sitting of such Special Court, or he is incapacitated by illness or otherwise for the performance of his duties, any urgent business in the Special Court shall be disposed of--
(a) by a Judge, if any, exercising jurisdiction in the Special Court;
(b) where there is no such other Judge available, in accordance with the direction of District and Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the oridinary place of sitting of Special Court, as notified under sub-section (1)."
It is also appropriate to have a glance of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and others vs. Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M.J. and others reported in (2023) 11 SCC 700, decision of this Court in the case of Deputy Engineer (O and M) vs. Nasir Hussain Abdulkadar Shaikh reported in 2015 LawSuit (Guj) 1599, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and others vs. Alimamad Aaamad Hingora and Ors. reported in 2015 LawSuit (Guj) 284, Paschim Gujarat Vij Corporation Ltd. vs. District Consumer Redressal Forum Bhuj and Anr. reported in 2011(3) GLR 2286, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Through Deputy Engineer vs. Naranbhai N. Chaudhary, President reported in 2014 (35) GHJ 1, Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs. Appellate Authority and Electrical Inspector reported in 2023 (2) GLH 67, wherein similar view has been taken by the Court. In view of the aforesaid decisions present petition does not deserve to be entertained.
In view of the above and in view of the fact that earlier the petitioner has already approached this Court by way of filing writ petition for the similar relief and withdrawn the same, the present petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse as provided under the statute. If a supplementary bill is issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, it is a settled principle of law, as enunciated by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of judgments, that Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act pertain to cases of unauthorized use of electricity or theft and in such matters, the concerned authority is required to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Special Court. Therefore, if the petitioner wishes to avail such remedy, it is open to him to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.