IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13974 of 2017 ==========================================================

DEPUTY ENGINEER ( O AND M)

Versus M/S DELIGHT BAKERS & 1 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 06/12/2022

ORAL ORDER

1. Though served none appears on behalf of respondent no. 1.

2. The Electricity Company – petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the appellate authority – respondent no. 2 herein by which the assessment and recovery of the amounts of the electricity bill of respondent no. 1 in appeal has been set aside.

3. Facts in brief would indicate that the electricity connection of respondent no. 1 was checked on

13.10.2016. The checking sheet showed the permitted load of 19KW whereas it was found on inspection that the connected load was 51.9KW. It was therefore evident that there was an unauthorized extension of load of 32.9 KW. The Checking Sheet admittedly was signed by the representative of respondent no. 1 without any protest. In accordance with the prescribed provisions, a provisional bill of Rs.2,30,168.40 was issued vide letter dated 15.10.2016. On 08.11.2016, the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause as to why provisional bill be not made final. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 1 appeared before the authority on 24.11.2016 and on a hearing being given to him by communication dated 28.11.2016, the assessment was made final and the respondent no. 1 was issued the final bill directing him to pay the amount of Rs.2,30,168.40. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the Electrical Inspector and by the impugned order the Electrical Inspector has allowed the appeal.

4. Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would invite the court’s attention to the reasons of the order which indicate that the appellate authority has allowed the appeal on the ground that the final assessment was not made within 30 days from the date of provisional assessment.

5. Reading of the order indicates that it is the case of the appellate authority while allowing the appeal that the provisional assessment was made on 15.10.2016. The representation was invited on 14.11.2016 whereas the final bill was made on 28.11.2016 beyond a period of 30 days from the date of the provisional assessment. This in the perception of the appellate authority was in breach of sub-section 3 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

6. Reading sub-section 3 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act indicates that a person on whom an order has been served under sub-section 2, that is an order of provisional assessment, shall be entitled to file objection, if any, against the provisional assessment and the assessing officer shall after affording a reasonable opportunity pass a final order within 30 days. Apparently, after the order of provisional assessment was made in the facts, the respondent no. 1 was afforded an opportunity of hearing on 15.11.2016 but the respondent no. 1 made his submissions only on 24.11.2016 and the order was made four days thereafter on 28.11.2016. Having done so there was no violation of provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 126 of the Act when the delay was on the part of the respondent no. 1. Even when the provisional bill was sent on 15.10.2016 by RPAD calling upon the respondent no. 1 to submit its objections within 7 days, the respondent no. 1 did not do so and eventually filed his submissions only on 24.11.2016. The final bill was issued on 28.11.2016.

7. In view of the above, the order of the appellate authority dated 30.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

DIVYA