Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. Desai, J.
Hiralal B. Masani - Appellants
Vs.
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 11589 of 2005
Decided On : 03-08-2016
For Appellant :Bharat T. Rao, Advocate
For Respondents:Lilu K. Bhaya, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, specifically Sections 33(A), 33(B), and 34, to establish the theft of electricity based on the detailed examination of the meter and seals.
Headnote:
Electricity Theft - Challenge to assessment bill - Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 33(A), 33(B), 34 - The court found that the petitioner was involved in theft of electricity based on detailed examination of the meter and tampering with its seals and internal parts. The court applied the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, specifically Sections 33(A), 33(B), and 34, to establish the theft of electricity and upheld the assessment bill issued by the authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturing firm, challenged an assessment bill issued by the electricity distribution company, alleging theft of electricity. The company found irregularities in the meter and issued a revised bill, which the petitioner appealed against.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detailed examination of the meter revealed tampering with seals and internal parts, indicating theft of electricity. The court upheld the assessment bill based on the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner, the application of penalty under the Electricity Act, 2003, and the validity of the assessment bill issued by the authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, specifically Sections 33(A), 33(B), and 34, to establish the theft of electricity based on the detailed examination of the meter and upheld the assessment bill issued by the authority.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the assessment bill, ruling in favor of the authority based on the findings of theft of electricity.
A.J. Desai, J.
1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Committee by which the appeal being Appeal No. B-50/2005 preferred by the petitioner challenging the assessment bill issued by the Company the ground of theft of electricity has not been entertained.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya and have filed affidavit-in-reply opposing grant of any relief.
3. The facts arise from the record are as under:
3.1. That the petitioner is a proprietary firm namely Upasana Ice Factory, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing ice, which is mainly used for preserving the fishes in the boats which are operated from Porbandar Coast by small fishermen of the area.
3.2. The respondent is in business of distribution of electricity to its consumers and the present petitioner is one of the consumers. The petitioner was provided electrical connection on 07.10.2002 and was granted load of 86 HP.
3.3. The Deputy Engineer of the respondent company visited the manufacturing unit on 04.12.2004 for replacement of old meter with the latest meter, which is known as static meter. In the presence of the representative of the petitioner, the old meter was removed and new meter was installed on the same day i.e. 04.12.2004. The rojkam with regard to the same was prepared on the same day and the representative of the petitioner had put his signature on the said rojkam. The old meter was removed and thereafter, was packed in a seal cover and the petitioner was informed that the meter shall be examined by the approved laboratory including the wiring and seals of the said old meter.
3.4. The petitioner received a communication dated 03.02.2005 from the respondent along with the supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 3,63,649.69/- considering the rojkam prepared on 04.12.2004. The details were supplied to the petitioner along with the said communication treating the case of the petitioner as theft of the electricity by the petitioner. The revised bill was issued on 03.02.2005 relying upon laboratory report dated 02.02.2005 carried out in the presence of the several officers as well as the representative of the petitioner. The laboratory report was supplied to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 02.02.2005 on which the representative of the petitioner has put his signature.
3.5. Being aggrieved by the revised bill, the petitioner preferred the above referred appeal by detailed representation.
3.6. The Appellate Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and after considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal.
4. Hence, this petition.
5. Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following questions for the decision.
"[1] That the petitioner has not committed any theft of the electricity as alleged by the respondents.
[2] The petitioner has not even committed any malpractice, which would entitle the respondent to charge or levy any penalty for a period of six months.
[3] In the alternative to the above aspect, he has raised the contention that since the case as alleged of theft of the electricity has been detected on 02.02.2005, the case of the petitioner would be covered under the amended provisions of Section 126(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, the petitioner can be asked to pay the penalty by using multiplier of 1.5 and not 2.5, which has been calculated while issuing the revised bill."
6. In support of his first as well as second submissions, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the manufacturing unit is located at sea-shore and therefore, the weather might have affected the electrical gazette. He would further submit that when the rojkam was prepared on 04.12.2004, no irregularity was found in the old meter by the D
