Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.
ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED – Petitioners
Versus
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 2859, 5494, 5621 of 2014
Decided On : 22.1.2015
MR. S.N. SHELAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR. MIHIR H. JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR. KEYUR GANDHI for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for the Petitioner.
MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MS. LILU K. BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondents.
Headnote:
Whether the appeal preferred by Essar against the revised supplementary bills issued by DGVCL is maintainable under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Fact of the Case:
Essar Steel India Limited (ESIL) preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act), against the revised supplementary bills issued by Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) for an alleged unauthorized use of electricity. DGVCL contended that the appeal was not maintainable as it was not filed within the prescribed limitation period and that the Appellate Authority, being the Chief Electrical Inspector, lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The Court found that the revised supplementary bills were issued under Section 126 of the Act, which provides for the assessment of electricity charges payable by a person who is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. The Court also found that the Appellate Authority was a duly appointed authority under the Act and had the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed under Section 126.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal preferred by Essar against the revised supplementary bills issued by DGVCL is maintainable under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority, being the Chief Electrical Inspector, lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable as it was filed within the prescribed limitation period and that the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The Court found that the revised supplementary bills were issued under Section 126 of the Act, which provides for the assessment of electricity charges payable by a person who is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. The Court also found that the Appellate Authority was a duly appointed authority under the Act and had the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed under Section 126. 2. The Court held that the Appellate Authority, being the Chief Electrical Inspector, did not lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The Court found that the Appellate Authority was a duly appointed authority under the Act and had the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed under Section 126.
Final Decision: The Court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The Court also held that the Appellate Authority, being the Chief Electrical Inspector, did not lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.
1. Rule is issued in each petition. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the Respondent-Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited in Special Civil Applications Nos. 5621 of 2014 and 5494 of 2014. Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate for Nanavati Associates, learned counsel, waives service of notice of Rule for Respondent No. 1 Essar Steel India Limited in Special Civil Application No. 2859 of 2014. As Respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 5494 of 2014 and 2859 of 2014 is the Appellate Authority whose order is impugned in the said petitions, it is not necessary to issue notice of Rule to the said respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the respective parties have addressed final arguments, therefore, the petitions are being heard and decided finally.
3. Special Civil Application No. 2859 of 2014 can be said to be the lead matter and Special Civil Application No. 5494 of 2014 is a cross-petition. The petitioner in the former petition is the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (“DGVCL” for short). The petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 01.11.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority, holding that the revised Supplementary Bill dated 25.01.2012 for an amount of Rs. 192.58 Crores for 168.62 Million Units (MU) electricity issued by DGVCL upon respondent No. 1Essar Steel India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ESIL” or “Essar” for convenience) is not justifiable under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“the Act” for short), and directing DGVCL to revise the said bill by issuing a reduced bill for 25.23 MU electricity at twice the normal tariff (HTP1), and to refund the balance amount to Essar along with interest and the delayed payment charges thereon.
4. The latter petition is a cross-petition, wherein the same order passed by the Appellate Authority has been challenged by ESIL to the extent that the appeal preferred by ESIL before the Appellate Authority has been partially rejected, by holding that ESIL has unauthorizedly used 25.23 MUs of power and thereby holding it liable to pay penal charges as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. Special Civil Application No. 5621 of 2014 does not arise from the abovementioned order of the Appellate Authority and does not appear to have any direct connection with the dispute involved in the above two petitions. The petitioner in this petition is ESIL and the petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the letters dated 05.04.2014 and 07.04.2014, issued by the respondent-DGVCL, by way of which DGVCL has asked the Western Region Load Dispatch Centre (WRLDC) to withdraw the Open Access Permission granted to ESIL and has demanded Rs. 126.67 Crores towards Cross Subsidy Surcharge and electricity dues. It is the case of ESIL that an amount of Rs. 192.58 Crores is liable to be refunded to it pursuant to the order dated 01.11.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority (impugned in Special Civil Application No. 2859 of 2014) and the amount of outstanding dues of ESIL, including Cross Subsidy Surcharge, be deducted from the above amount.
6. The factual background in which Special Civil Application No. 2859 of 2014 (the lead petition) and Special Civil Application No. 5494 of 2014 (the cross petition) have been preferred, assumes some importance for a clear understanding of the issues involved in the petitions. Culled out from the record, it is being briefly recorded as below.
7. The petitioner in the lead petition is DGVCL, a company incorporated and registered under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in the southern region of the State of Gujarat, under the Act. It is a Distribution Licencee under the provisions of the Act.
8. The petitioner in the cross-petition is ESIL (of the Essar Group of companies), which is a company registered under th
