SONI KESHAVLAL KALIDAS Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VERAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appellant challenges in this second appeal partial rejection of his suit by the learned Assistant Judge Junagadh at Porbandar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1974 filed by respondent Electricity Board before the District Court.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to glance through certain relevant facts leading to this litigation between the respondent Electricity Board and the appellant plaintiff who is the consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent Electricity Board. His consumer number is 3744. The plaintiff is holding connection of 80 H. P. for industrial purposes and he runs an oil mill in the name and style of Chhabil Oil Mill at Veraval in Junagadh District. According to the plaintiff he is taking advantage of seasonal rates as per the provisions of the tariff prescribed be the respondent Board every year and for that purpose an application is required to be made to the defendant before the calendar year during which the benefit is to be claimed. The plaintiffs case is that he was desirous of claiming the benefit of seasonal rates during the calendar year 1972. For that purpose he made an application to the respondent Board before the beginning of the calendar year 1972 and accordingly he had given that application by December 1971. Thereafter as per the tariff rules of the Board as applicable by the relevant time he further intimated the respondent at his application 1.7.1972 that he would claim the benefit of seasonal rates during the months of August September and October and that the said letter was received by the respondent on the same date i. e. on 1-7-1972. The plaintiff claimed that the respondent had agreed to give to the plaintiff the benefit of seasonal rates during those three months in the year 1972 and accordingly the bills under seasonal rates were issued to him for those months. He claimed to has paid those bills. The plaintiff contended that in spite of that fact the respondent gave him notice dated 16th May 1973 claiming further amount of Rs. 1738.32 as if that amount is due and not paid by the plaintiff. According to him the said notice has been given in contravention of the provisions of rules and law and that the respondent has no right to give him such a notice or to recover any such amount as claimed in the said notice. It was further contended that by the said notice the plaintiff has been informed by the respondent that the electric connection of the plaintiff would be disconnected if the plaintiff did not pay the amount mentioned in the said notice. According to the plaintiff the amount as claimed in the notice is not legally recoverable by the respondent and still the defendant threatened to recover the same under intimation to the effect that the connection of power supply would be discontinued and so he was required to file the suit to get the relief against the said illegal notice. Accordingly the appellant plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 136 of 1973 in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Veraval against the Electricity Board respondent herein for a declaration that the impugned notice dated 16-5-1973 was illegal null and void and in contravention of the provisions of law and for a further declaration that the respondent was not entitled to recover the said amount as mentioned in the said notice and further claimed a permanent injunction restraining the respondent through its agent or servant from effecting disconnection of power supply in pursuance of the said notice.

(3.) The respondent Board by its written statement Exhibit 14 resisted the suit and contended that the ap locution made by the plaintiff for availing of seasonal rates benefit was agent and ambiguous and it was not sufficient to allow him the said benefit. It was further contended that the plaintiff was not treated as a seasonal consumer and he was not entitled to get benefit as a seasonal consumer. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs application dated 1-7-1972 was not received by the respondent Board on the very date i. e. 1-7-1972 but was received late consequently the plaintiff could not get the benefit of seasonal rate for the months of August September and October 1972 as alleged by him. It was further contended that the amount mentioned in the notice dated 16-5-1973 was quite proper and correct and the said dues are recoverable as per rules of the respondent Board. It was further contended that if the application for availing the benefit of seasonal rates is not made within the period prescribed the said benefit would not be available to the concerned consumer. It is submitted by the respondent Board that the Board has a right to effect disconnection of power supply if the plaintiff had not paid the dues legally recoverable by the Board under the impugned notice dated 16 It was therefore submitted that the plaintiffs suit was liable to be dismissed.