Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. Kogje, J.
Executive Engineer (O & M) - Petitioner
Versus
Amul Crankshaft Pvt. Ltd. Unit-2b & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 6553 of 2012 With R/Special Civil Application No. 11005 of 2013
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Electricity Act, 2003 - Petitions are filed by Electric Company challenging order of Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority in Appeal by which bill issued by petitioner company was set aside - Appeal against bill of challenge and in Special Civil Application order passed by same authority - Petitions are based on similar facts and between same parties however challenge is with regards to bills issued for different period and therefore are extracted from Special Civil Application - Petitioner submitted that checking was carried out by team of petitioner on premises of respondent in presence of representative of respondent - It was found that though respondent had obtained connection for Part power supply to extent of H.P was connected from help of panel/stabilizer and mm black color cable connected load in Part and was unauthorized joined - Thus total connected load was 692 H.P - Private Limited respondent has established its manufacturing unit in Shed of Industrial Compound - At said place respondent is having HT connection bearing with Contract Demand of provided by petitioner - Held, Court has perused documents on record which include maps of local authorities particularly at which is layout place of one Industries Private Limited within whose premises both premises of Crankshaft Private Limited and Precision Casting Private Limited are located map indicates a public road as well as internal road - Space between aforementioned two premises namely Precision Casting Private Limited and Crankshaft Private Limited open space is not indicated to be a internal road or any road for that map - Court is therefore of opinion that land lying between two adjacent premises is margin land which is required to be kept open both by Precision Casting Private Limited and Crankshaft Private Limited - Now this open space cannot take place of a public road so as to fall within policy of petitioner electric company not permitting transfer of electric power from premises of Crankshaft Private Limited to its newly acquired premises of erstwhile Precision Casting Private Limited - In impugned order on basis of evidence on record Electrical Inspector has examined this aspect and held that Plaintiff informed his letter that as per development permission of Rajkot Urban Development Authority development charges were received by Plaintiff in respect of plots and plan & layout of construction according to special condition and permission of consolidation has been granted - Petition dismissed (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the Case:
Checking was carried out by the team of the petitioner on 26.08.2011 in the premises of respondent No.1 in the presence of representative of the respondent No.1. It was found that though the respondent No.1 had obtained connection for Part No.1, power supply to the extent of 340 H.P. was connected from the Part No.1 to Part No.2 with the help of panel/stabiliser and 225 mm black colour cable. The connected load in Part No.1 was 352 H.P. and in Part No.2 340 H .P. load was unauthorisedly joined. Thus, the total connected load was 692 H.P. Though the respondent No.1 was not permitted to use the power supply in Part No.2, it was using power from Part No.1 to Part No.2. This amounts to unauthorized use of electricity by respondent No.1.
Finding of the Court:
Court has perused documents on record which include maps of local authorities particularly at which is layout place of one Industries Private Limited within whose premises both premises of Crankshaft Private Limited and Precision Casting Private Limited are located map indicates a public road as well as internal road - Space between aforementioned two premises namely Precision Casting Private Limited and Crankshaft Private Limited open space is not indicated to be a internal road or any road for that map - Court is therefore of opinion that land lying between two adjacent premises is margin land which is required to be kept open both by Precision Casting Private Limited and Crankshaft Private Limited - Now this open space cannot take place of a public road so as to fall within policy of petitioner electric company not permitting transfer of electric power from premises of Crankshaft Private Limited to its newly acquired premises of erstwhile Precision Casting Private Limited - In impugned order on basis of evidence on record Electrical Inspector has examined this aspect and held that Plaintiff informed his letter that as per development permission of Rajkot Urban Development Authority development charges were received by Plaintiff in respect of plots and plan & layout of construction according to special condition and permission of consolidation has been granted.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. These two petitions are filed by the Electric Company challenging the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar in Appeal by which the bill issued by the petitioner company was set aside. In Special Civil Application No. 6553 of 2012, the order dated 06.02.2012 in Appeal No.MNV/Appeal/2126 of 2012 against bill of Rs.52,06,835/- is under challenge and in Special Civil Application No.11005 of 2012 the order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the same authority in Appeal No.MVN/TPS/235 of 2013 against the bill of Rs.31,89,311/- is under challenge. Both the petitions are based on similar facts and between the same parties however, the challenge is with regards to the bills issued for different period and therefore, the facts are extracted from Special Civil Application No.6553 of 2012.
2. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing for the petitioner submitted that the checking was carried out by the team of the petitioner on 26.08.2011 in the premises of respondent No.1 in the presence of representative of the respondent No.1. It was found that though the respondent No.1 had obtained connection for Part No.1, power supply to the extent of 340 H.P. was connected from the Part No.1 to Part No.2 with the help of panel/stabiliser and 225 mm black colour cable. The connected load in Part No.1 was 352 H.P. and in Part No.2 340 H .P. load was unauthorisedly joined. Thus, the total connected load was 692 H.P. Though the respondent No.1 was not permitted to use the power supply in Part No.2, it was using power from Part No.1 to Part No.2. This amounts to unauthorized use of electricity by respondent No.1.
2.1. Pursuant to the checking, provisional bill dated 29.08.2011 by invoking Section 126 of the Electricity Act was issued for an amount of Rs.1,06,26,204/- and opportunity was given to respondent No.1 to object against the said bill and pursuant to hearing, the bill was reduced and final assessment was given of Rs.52,06,835/-.
2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid final assessment of supplementary bill, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act by making payment of Rs.26,03,417/- being 50% of the bill amount. It is submitted that the objections against the respondent No.1 was of use of electricity in another premises other than the premises for which authorized connection was given. It is submitted that the place where power was being used in adjacent premises was not shown within the power boundary at the time of connection. It is submitted that though the respondent No.1 had applied for using the electricity in the adjoining place belonging to one M/s. Aarcee Precision Casting which the respondent No.1 had taken on rent, yet permission was not granted as respondent No.1 had failed to produce valid document of ownership and was not able to explain the ownership of 7.5 meter open space between both the plots and on account of the open space, which is a road, premises cannot be considered to be joint premises and therefore, there is no provision by which electric company could have allowed taking of electricity from connection of one premises to another though it may have been occupied by the same consumer.
2.3. Reliance is placed upon the approved sketch of RUDA to show that between two premises there existed 7.5 meter open land. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that this open land is a road between the two premises and even though it is not demarcated as a public road, nonetheless it being a road, premises cannot be amalgamated. Learned advocate drew attention of this Court to such map contending that the survey numbers of both the premises were quite different and as there is no policy to recognize them to be a joint premises, permission to transfer electric power from one premises to another cannot be permitted.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner has adopted unfair approach towards its cons
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
