KARSHANBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the respondent and the supplementary bill dated 07.07.2003 sent by the respondent to the petitioner and to declare that the respondent has not committed any theft of electricity.

(2.) The officer of the respondent board had checked meter of the petitioner on 18.11.2002 and during the said checking it was found that the petitioner committed theft of electricity. The respondent board therefore issued supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 94,934.40 to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the appellate authority of the board which passed the impugned order revising the supplementary bill. Being aggrieved by the bill and the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the laboratory report itself established that there is no theft committed by the petitioner, there is no justification in the Appellate Committee not accepting the appeal of the petitioner in toto. He has submitted that the Appellate Committee has erred in not accepting the laboratory report.