Umesh Kumar Ice Factory vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.

Akil Kureshi, J.—Petitioner is an Ice Factory. Petitioner is a consumer ofelectricity of high tension power supply used for running Ice Factory. An inspection was carried out by the Authorized Officer of the Electricity Company on 5.2.2003at the site of the Ice Factory where the electricity meter was installed. It was found that meter was tampered recording of the electricity consumption was being disrupted by drawing panchnama. The meter was seized and sent for laboratory testing. The laboratory report suggested that there was 6'' hole in the MMB and 3 phase C T secondary wires were loose and open. Such wires were found to be tampered. In short, even the laboratory report conclusively indicated that he was tampering with the meter. Electricity Company therefore issued Supplementary Bill of Rs. 4,68,661/-to the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged the Supplementary Bill before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Committee vide its impugned order at Annexure-D believed the case of theft of electricity and turned down the request of the Petitioner for reduction in number of days for which such Supplementary Bill was issued but partially accepted the request for reduction in diversity factor for winter and non-winter periods. It is this order, which the Petitioner has challenged in the present petition.

From the record, it clearly emerges that right from the inspecting period, the officers of the electricity company on the basis of the laboratory report and the Appellate Committee have come to an unequivocal finding that the Petitioner had indulged in tampering with the electricity meter thereby committed theft of electricity energy. This aspect of the matter clearly emerges from the record. No interference in this regard is therefore possible.

The Appellate Authority also considered various other challenges of the Petitioner and granted only limited respite by reducing the load factor considering the different multiplier for the winter season. Nothing has been pointed out to suggest that Appellate Committee has committed any error.

Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged.