Shakti Plastics vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.

Akil Kureshi, J.—Petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the Electricity Company. The Petitioner has challenged the supplementary bill raised by the Electricity Company as substantially upheld by the Appellate Authority.

The Petitioner has been granted 40HP high tension electricity connection. On 5.5.03, the meter was burnt. The Petitioner informed the authorities. The meter was collected, sealed and sent for laboratory testing. In presence of the Petitioner or his representative on 13.5.03, the meter was tested in the laboratory. The report suggested that on the body cover there is a minute hole which would permit passing of a wire freely. In the meter there were scratch marks on the plate near figures 100, 1000 etc. There were other scratches also around the said area. The report therefore concluded that the meter was tampered and it is a case of theft of electricity. The Respondent thereupon issued a supplementary bill considering this as a case of theft of electricity applying the usual formula and demanded additional electricity charges of Rs. 3,00,557.81.

The Petitioner disputed the revised bill and filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the stand of the Petitioner that there was no theft of electricity or that previously the meter was changed and the present meter was not damaged. The Authority, however, accepted the say of the Petitioner regarding weekly off and reduced the total number of days from 181 days to 152 by granting 26 weekly offs and 3 public holidays. Revised bill pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority therefore came down to Rs. 2,26,338/-.

Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that no case of theft of electricity is established. Simply because a hole was found in the meter per-se cannot reach to the conclusion that meter was tampered. Nothing has been produced to suggest that the mater was actually tampered with. He pointed out that the Petitioner had asked for certain documents which were never supplied by the Respondent. The Appellate Authority also without having such documents supplied proceeded to decide the appeal and in fact relied on certain documents never revealed to the Petitioner.

On the other hand, counsel for the Electricity Company opposed the petition contending that there was sufficient evidence to establish tampering of the mater and being a case of theft. The Electricity Company has raised supplementary bill.

The Petitioner cannot raise disputed questions of facts in a writ petition.

Having thus heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it clearly emerges that the laboratory report suggested that there was hole in the body of the meter permitting access of a wire and around the meter numbers scratch marks were found. This was established through the report of laboratory. The Petitioner raised no objection to such report. The Authorities of the Electricity Company as well as the Appellate Authority have treated this as a case of theft of electricity. No interference in such factual conclusions are necessary in absence of any perversity. The fact that the Petitioner raised no objection during inspection in the laboratory would only go to show that the Petitioner did not object to the finding of the technician with respect to the condition of the meter and could not and has not been taken as binding with respect to theft of electricity or subsequent calculation of the supplementary bill.

The Appellate Authority granted reduction by reducing weekly offs and some public holidays. No further reduction can be ordered. The documents which the Petitioner claimed did not hamper his defence. The factum of theft of electricity was established through evidence on record. Rest was a matter of calculation as per the established formula. No interference is, therefore called for. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.