RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal From Order is filed being aggrieved of an order passed below Notice of Motion in Civil Suit no. 1521 of 2004 dated 15. 06. 2004, whereby the learned judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to dismiss the Notice of Motion.

( 2 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act" for the sake of brevity) is applicable to the facts of the case that under the provisions of section 126 of the new Act, in the event of noticing an irregularity on inspection, the Ahmedabad electricity Company (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent company") could have assessed the charges for a period of three months only and not for a period of six months; that the assessment could have been only 1. 5 times, and not 2. 5 times; that the appellant is served with an assessment order for a sum of Rs. 54,287/-, and in addition to that the appellant is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5400/-, by way of security deposit; that there is no provision under which the appellant could have asked to deposit such security deposit under the new Act; that thus the amount assessed is incorrect on two counts, (i) it is assessed for a period of six months, and (ii) it is at the rate of 2. 5 times rather than 1. 5 time.

( 3 ) ON contentions being raised, order for issuance of notice was passed on 18. 06. 2004, but on condition that, the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant deposited that amount and complied with the condition precedent thereafter the notice was issued by the Registry of this Court.

( 4 ) MR. PUJARA, the learned advocate appears in response to the notice of this Court, an affidavit in reply affirmed by one Shri Sudhirbhai J. Shah, Manager (Legal) of the respondent company is filed. The learned advocate submitted that, not only this Appeal From Order but even the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is required to be dismissed, for the simple reason that, the incident which is the subject matter of this entire litigation, is detection of unauthorised addition and/ or alteration of the consumers electrical installation without permission of the licensee-the Ahmedabad electricity Company Limited. He further submitted that it is reflected in the inspection slip and it was served to the appellant-consumer/ his representative on 02. 04. 2004. The appellant was found, "indulging in interfering with the meter or licensees works, etc. , including preventing the meter from registering the actual consumption of energy". The learned advocate pointed out the cause, mentioned in the said inspection slip, which reads as under:"by opening n in LCDP a switchis installed and by virtue of that electric supply is on earthing basis--earthing switch is installed-- andsupply is disconnected. "

( 5 ) MR. PUJARA, the learned advocate submitted that, in the new Act transitional provisions are made in section 172. According to him clause (d) of section 172 of the new Act has direct application to the facts of the present case which reads as under: " (d) the State Government may, by notification, declare that any or all the provisions contained in this Act, shall not apply in that State for such period, not exceeding six months from the appointed date, as may be stipulated in the notification. " (emphasis supplied) he submitted that 10. 06. 2003 was the appointed date notified to be the date, for coming into force of the new act. The State of Gujarat opted to exercise discretion under the aforesaid clause (d) of section 172. Hence the new Act has come into force, in the State of Gujarat, on 10. 12. 2003. The learned advocate submitted that, on coming into force of the new Act also, all the provisions have not become operative, because some of the provisions are provided with, a time frame by which they are to become operative. The learned advocate pointed out section 185 of the new Act, which is for repeal and saving.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document