Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :N.N.MATHUR
BANUMA POLYTEX LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent
S.C.A. 819 of 1995
Decided On : 03/21/1995
In the present Special Civil Application, number of disputed questions of facts are involved. Firstly, as to whether version given by the petitioner is correct or concocted as stated by the respondent. Secondly, whether or not, the petitioner has tampered with the meter. Thirdly, whether the electronic meter which is installed in the series to the tampered meter has recorded consumption which is recorded by tampered meter. It may be stated that the say of the respondent with respect to the electronic meter is that it was installed on experimental basis at several instrumental units having high tension power since the Board wants to observe the utility of such meters from the view point of the theft of energy. It is also stated that the meter works on the electronic circuit and if any consumer gets a design, he can prepare remote control device easily and if the circuit is same in all the electronic meter, the same remote control can be used by the consumers where such electronic meters are installed. It is also submitted that such remote control can be made for expense of Rs. 500/- or so. Thus, there are not only disputed questions of fact but also complicated technical questions involved in the present Special Civil application. It is settled law that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an appropriate remedy to determine the disputed questions of fact involved technical considerations.
[Para 12]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ - Maintainability of - Remedy provided under conditions of supply by approaching Appellate Committee - Held, petitioner is relegated to said remedy.
In view of alternative remedy provided under the conditions of supply of appropaching the appellate committee of the respondent Board for ventilating the grievances, the petitioner is required to be relegated to the said remedy. Petitioner is relegated to remedy of appeal under condition 34 or to say it is not considered a fit case to exercise power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[Paras 12 & 14]
Obiter Dicta and Electricity (Supply) Act - Theft of electricity - Grievance of fair play from mouth of persons alleged to be indulged in theft of electricity - Held, terrorist talking of human rights.
In fact grievance of fair play coming from the mouth of persons alleged to be indulged in the electricity theft appears as if Terrorist talking of Human rights.
[Para 13]
( 1 )
( 2 ) MR. Tushar Mehta, waives service of Rule for the respondents. In view of the fact of the case and urgency in the matter, Rule is taken up for final hearing.
( 3 ) THE petitioner by way of Spl. C. A. under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india, seeks to challenge the supplementary bill dated 18-1-1995 for Rs. 42,96,035. 80 paise issued by respondent-Electricity Board in respect of petitioners unit at karannagar. The petitioner further seeks declaration that the action of the respondent- gujarat Electricity Board in disconnecting the electric power supply to the petitioners unit at Karannagar is illegal and malafide and further direct the respondents to forthwith reconnect the supply of electricity to the said unit. The facts culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner company is engaged in manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn. The major part of the companys product is exported. The sale turn-over for the year 1993-94 was to the tune of Rs. 17. 39 crores. The unposted turn-over during the current year upto March, 1995 is expected to be over Rs. 20 crores. The petitioner is being supplied electric energy by the respondent Gujarat State Electricity Board. The contract demand for the Karannagar Unit is 475 KVA. The monthly average bill for Karannagar unit for the consumption is of Rs. 2 lakhs.
( 4 ) ON 17-1-1995, a F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Kadi by one D. B. Singh, Manager of the petitioner company stating that he was informed by one Shri l. C. Pande, Senior Supervisor that in the morning at about 4. 30 hrs. Ex. Supervisor lakhansing had entered in the factory from behind jumping from the Varandah and attempted to break the meter of electricity installed in the factory. He tried to chase him alongwith Mangalsing but he jumped over the varandah on the back side and ran away. The meter box and the seal were found broken. It was also stated that lakhansing was working as Supervisor in the factory since last 11/2 years and as he was causing loss to the factory he was removed from the service a day before. Petitioner-company also sent written information to respondent No. 2 - Executive engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Kadi. On 18-1-1995, a team of officers of the gujarat Electricity Board, visited the factory premises. They found the meter working properly and MD meter seal and the terminal block seal were found intact. The electronic meter installed in parallel was found intact.
( 5 ) THE petitioner has also narrated earlier incident perhaps in order to show malafide on the part of the respondent. It is alleged that on 22-4-1994, two people from Gujarat Electricity Board, Kadi, scaled the back wall of the factory and checked the installation claiming that the theft of energy was being committed. Consequently, supplementary bill for Rs. 42. 12 lakhs was raised and the power supply was disconnected by Gujarat Electricity Board. On suit filed by the petitioner, the 3rd joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mehsana, by order dated 18-5-1994 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs and the respondent Gujarat Electricity Board was directed to reconnect the power supply. Aggrieved by the said order, the Gujarat electricity Board preferred Appeal against the order before this Court wherein the petitioner was further asked to deposit additional amount Rs. 3 lakhs and the Board was directed to reconnect the power supply. Said Appeal From Order is still pending before this Court. The supply was restored on 23-6-1994. The Board replaced the mechanical meter on their own. In August 1994, the petitioner company received two anonymous letters threatening to damage the electrical installation. The matter was reported to the police as well as to the Board. In September, 1994, the computerised electronic meter was installed in parallel to the existing mechanical meter. The joint inspection report dated 18-1-1995 is placed on record as Annexure d.
( 6 ) THE petitioner is havin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
