ORDER :

A.J. SHASTRI, J.

1. The appellant – original petitioner, has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8548 of 2019.

2. The background of fact leading to this litigation is that respondent no. 1 in origin is a consumer of the petitioner under N.R.G.P., for industrial purpose with a contract load of 26.5 KW. On an application of respondent no. 1 regarding the burnt meter on 23.04.2018, the electricity connection was checked and during the checking, it was noticed by the petitioner – authority, that display voltage showed VI-249.23 volt, V2-251.42 volt and V3-237.04 volt, whereas ampere was found to be A1-30.08, A2-0.81 and A3-39.96. Thus, there was a negligible ampere found in one phase and the officers found that the meter ran slow by 33.86%, on checking with accused-check. A checking sheet was prepared on 23.04.2018 and based upon it, the meter was replaced on 24.04.2018 and sent to the laboratory for checking on 03.07.2018.

3. As per the case of the appellant – authority, the laboratory inspection has revealed certain discrepancies, due to which, MRI data was retrieved. The manufacturer of the meter was contacted and MRI Data was taken on 06.07.2018. As per the MRI report in the meter of ‘Y’ phase ‘CT’ opened on 01.01.2018 with a reading 210876.1 KHW, which revealed slowness from 01.01.2018 to 24.04.2018. Based upon such analysis, since the meter was running slower by 33.86%, a supplementary bill to the extent of Rs.1,15,000.93 paise came to be issued.

4. Respondent no. 1 issued an average bill for April billed in May, 2018 on 17.04.2018 with the faulty status, with reading as indicated. However, as per the laboratory inspection reading on 24.04.2018 in the MRI report the data was found to be 247949. The consumption to the extent of 16760 KWH units was recorded during the said period, whereas, respondent no. 1 was billed for 7660 KWH units. Hence, an amount of Rs.57,148/- for 9100 units was debited from the account of respondent no. 1.

5. Aggrieved by the said issuance of bill, respondent no. 1 approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum through a compliant on 01.10.2018. After hearing the parties, the bill was found to be just and proper, the compliant filed by respondent no. 1 was disposed of on 09.10.2018.

6. It is the case of the appellant – authority that aggrieved by the said decision, respondent no. 1 approached respondent no. 2 i.e. Electricity Ombudsman, State of Gujarat, by way of appeal. The appeal was registered as Case No. 109 of 2018. After hearing the parties at length, and examining the discrepancies in controversy, respondent no. 2, has found that close scrutiny of MRI Data and analysis, shows that the meter does not appear to be slow by 33.86% constantly. Hence, the appellant authority was directed to issue a bill to respondent no. 1 for 1791 units. It is this reasoned order, passed by respondent no. 2 – authority, dated 23.01.2019 that has been challenged by the appellant – authority, by way of aforesaid writ petition.

7. The learned Single Judge took up the hearing bipartite of the petition. After hearing at length and examining the details and circumstances prevalent on the record, it was found that no case is made out by the appellant – authority, to interfere with the order passed by respondent no.2. Resultantly, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition came to be dismissed. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge that has been made the subject matter of appeal before us.

8. We have heard Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – authority, and Shri Vatsal Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 1. With the consent of the both the learned counsels, the matter has been taken up for its final disposal.

9. Ms. Bhaya,