Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M) – Appellant
Versus
SHAH PAPER MILLS LTD. – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 996 of 2018, Special Civil Application No. 10579 of 2017
Decided On : 24-06-2024
Electricity - Unauthorized Use - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 126, 43 - The court interpreted unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126, emphasizing the necessity of legal permission for electricity use in premises not covered by the original connection, influencing the decision to uphold the provisional bill issued.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent used electricity in additional plots without authorization, leading to a provisional bill for unauthorized use under the Electricity Act. The respondent claimed prior applications for extension were ignored, while the appellant maintained the use was unauthorized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's use of electricity in plots not covered by the original connection constituted unauthorized use under Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, affirming the provisional bill issued by the appellant.
Issues: Whether the respondent's use of electricity in additional plots constituted unauthorized use under the Electricity Act, and if the appellant was justified in issuing a provisional bill.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's failure to obtain a separate electricity connection for the additional plots constituted unauthorized use, as defined under Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act.
Result: The appeal is allowed, setting aside the previous judgments and upholding the provisional bill for unauthorized electricity use.
JUDGMENT :
PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
1. The present appeal preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness and validity of judgment and order dated 21.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10579 of 2017.
2. The prayers as prayed for by the appellant-original petitioner in the writ-petition was to issue writ/ order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 8.9.2016 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar vide order No. CEI/INS/APL/2016/10271.
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments and averments made by both the sides, was pleased to dismiss the writ-petition by way of an order dated 21.8.2017, which is assailed in the present appeal.
4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the writ- petition is that the respondent was having an Industrial Connection in Plot No. 5202 in third phase, GIDC, Vapi, Valsad with contract demand of 2800 KVA. The connection was checked by the Installation Checking Squad on 4.7.2015. It was found that the connection was released in Plot No. 5202 and respondent was using 749.20 HP load of boiler auxiliaries in Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2 without prior legal permission of the petitioner. As per the checking sheet, respondent had unauthorisedly extended power boundary, which amounted to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126(B)(V) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Pursuant thereto, respondent was issued provisional bill for Rs.66,01,215.89 ps, vide letter dated 6.7.2015.
5. Pursuant to the issuance of provisional bill, respondent was called upon to make representation within a span of 7 days. The respondent made written submission on 20.7.2015 and was given hearing on 27.7.2015 and 28.7.2015. It was the case of the respondent that respondent had applied for power boundary extension vide application dated 20.10.2012, which was received by the petitioner on 4.12.2012. It was the case of the respondent that they have got permission of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) and Electrical Inspector for new set-up in adjoining Plot Nos. 5302/1 and 5302/2. The request was also made for power boundary extension on 4.12.2012 to the petitioner. There was no response from the petitioner. There was bonafide on the part of the respondent. However, overlooking the submission made by the respondent, a final bill came to be issued on 30.7.2015 to the tune of Rs.66,01,215.89 ps.
6. Pursuant to the final bill, the respondent preferred Appeal under Section 127 fo the Act before the Appellate authority. The Appellate authority, by way of an order dated 8.9.2016, decided the appeal and quashed and set- aside the final bill and directed the petitioner to issue fresh bill for 749.20 HP for 16 hours. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the appellate authority being Chief Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar, dated 8.9.2016, the petitioner preferred writ-petition before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 10579 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, by way of order dated 21.8.2017 dismissed the writ-petition, which is now assailed in the present Appeal.
7. We have heard Ms. Lilu Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Bhargavi G. Thakar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
8. Ms. Lilu Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the grant of electrical connection was in the premises comprising of Plot No. 5202, whereas at the time of checking it was found that respondent was using the electricity in a different premises comprising of Plot Nos. 5301/1 and 5302/2. Therefore, it was a clear case of unauthorised use of electricity which attracts the provisions of Section 126(6) of the Act. The appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge have erred in reducing the bill for actual usage of 16 hours onl
Unauthorized use of electricity occurs when electricity is used in premises not covered by the original connection, necessitating a separate application for supply.
Excess electricity consumption constitutes unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which prevails over conflicting provisions in the Supply Code.
Unauthorized use of electricity for a purpose other than authorized and in premises other than those for which the supply was authorized constitutes a violation of Section 126 of the Electricity Act ....
Jurisdiction- 1-The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court di....
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the consumer to demonstrate the actual period of unauthorized electricity use to challenge assessments under Section 126(5).
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
