Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
SATISH BABUBHAI PATEL - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14183 of 2013
Decided on: 30.11.2013
Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 126, 127 – Electricity Bill –Assessment of – Petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent no.4 company – Electricity Company has provided a single phase meter to the petitioner with a Customer – Respondent no.4 company has also provided a three phase meter with a sanctioned load of 27 HP – It is the case of the petitioner that in the provisional assessment bill there were blanks and the same was a cyclostyled final assessment order without any reference of any of the objections which were raised by the petitioner at the relevant point of time – Held, Rule is based on the maxim "nemo judex in causa sua", which means that no man can be a judge in his own cause – Only by virtue of the fact that the appellate authority, namely the Chief Electrical Inspector and other Electrical Inspectors are officers appointed by the State Government, there cannot be a presumption that in all cases they would act in a bias manner trying to favour the Electricity company – It would depend from cases to cases and in a particular case, if there is material to establish bias, then it could always be corrected by a superior Court – Court should see whether there is undisputed material which is likely to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the person complaining of bias taking care that the apprehension is not vague, whimsical or capricious – It appears that the petitioner has also challenged the legality and validity of the final assessment order, issued under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 – It also appears that on conclusion of the arguments, and while making the judgment CAV, we had made it clear in our order, that we have not taken into consideration the remedy pleaded in paragraph 10 Clause (f) and other consequential reliefs and the pendency of this application would not stand in the way of the petitioner in separately challenging the assessment order, passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2013, before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law – Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and the petition should fail – Petition Rejected (Paras 53, 54, 55, 56, 57)
PER : J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. By this writ application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent no.4 company, has prayed for the following reliefs :
"(a) Be pleased to quash and set aside Section 126 and Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act no.26 of 2003) as ultra vires the Constitution of India.
(b) Be pleased to quash and set aside the Section 145 of the The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act no.36 of 2003) as ultra vires the Constitution of India.
(c) Be pleased to quash and set aside the GSR 265(E) dated 16th April 2004, The Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Parent Act i.e. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act no.36 of 2003).
(d) Be pleased to quash and set aside Notification styled as “GU-2007-133-ELA-1103-9539-k” dated September 1, 2007, issued by Energy and Petrochemicals Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar as ultra vires the Constitution of India, 1950 and Parent Act i.e. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act no.36 of 2003).
(e) Be pleased quash and set aside Notification styled GSR 481(E) dated 17th August 2006 the Qualifications Powers and Functions of Chief Electrical Inspectors and Electrical Inspectors Rules, 2006 the Constitution of India and the Parent Act i.e. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act no.36 of 2003).
(f) Be pleased to quash and set aside final Assessment Order dated 22nd February 2010 issued under S. 126 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act no.36 of 2003).
(g) Pending Admission, Hearing and Final disposal of this Petition, Be pleased to grant electrical connection to the petitioner.
(h) Pending Admission, Hearing and Final disposal of this Petition, Be pleased to stay the recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the final Assessment Order dated 22.02.2010.
(i) Costs of this Petition be awarded.
(j) Such further and other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the Petition.”
2. Facts of the Case :
2.1 The petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent no.4 company, namely, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Bambhroli Sub Division, Surat. The Electricity Company has provided a single phase meter to the petitioner bearing No.2188376 with a Customer No.18204/ 11957/7. The respondent no.4 company has also provided a three phase meter No.4946873 bearing Customer No.17294.11957/7 with a sanctioned load of 27 HP.
2.2 It appears that on 22/12/2009, an inspection was carried-out by the Vigilance Officers of the Electricity Company at the premises of the petitioner and during the inspection it was found that the consumption of the electricity by the petitioner was more than the sanctioned load of 29 HP. Such excess consumption of electricity by the petitioner was found to be unauthorized by the Vigilance Officers.
2.3 It also appears from the materials on record that pursuant to the inspection which was carried-out at the premises of the petitioner, a provisional assessment bill was raised by the electricity company for the unauthorized use of the excess load.
2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that in the provisional assessment bill there were blanks and the same was a cyclostyled final assessment order without any reference of any of the objections which were raised by the petitioner at the relevant point of time.
2.5 The petitioner, being dissatisfied with such a provisional assessment bill issued by the Electricity Company, instead of challenging the same before the Appellate Authority U/s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, thought fit to challenge the same before the District Consumer Forum, Surat by filing a Complaint Case No.97/2000.
2.6 It appears that the District Consumer Forum, Surat refused to entertain such complaint of illegal issuance of a provisional assessment Bill relying on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., and Others Vs. Ani
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
