KRYSTAL POLYFAB LIMITED Vs. GEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, who has filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 1995, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangrol. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a Registered Company, having its factory situated at : Block No.112, Plot No.15-18, Mota Borsara, Taluka : Mangrol, District : Surat. The plaintiff is the consumer of the electric power obtained from the defendant Gujarat Electricity Board, bearing Consumer No.6448/39486. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is paying electricity consumption bills regularly and in spite of that, the Officers of the defendant visited the factory of the plaintiff on 26.4.1995 and checked the meter wire and found that the seal of the meter body was intact and that the meter is running slowly and after preparing Memorandum, they instructed the plaintiff that they would send a supplementary bill, for which the plaintiff objected. In spite of that, supplementary bill was issued without referring the dispute to the Electric Inspector under the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. It is the say of the plaintiff that there was no defect in the meter and, therefore, the Board had no right to send supplementary bill and had no right to disconnect the electricity power of the plaintiff. It is stated that if there is any dispute about the correctness of the meter, the procedure is required to be followed for checking the meter through the Electric Inspector. Therefore, on the aforesaid averments, the said suit has been filed for a declaration that the Officers of the defendant have no right or authority to issue the supplementary bill and have no right to discontinue electricity power of the plaintiff on the basis of such supplementary bill.

(2.) In the aforesaid suit, permanent injunction has also been prayed for against disconnection of electricity supply or implementing the supplementary bill. Along with the suit, the plaintiff gave application Exhibit 5 for interim injunction, which was originally granted by the trial court, directing both the sides to maintain status quo and on Exhibit 5, the trial court issued show cause notice to the defendant as to why the said order should not be confirmed.

(3.) The defendants appeared in the suit in response to the said show cause notice and filed their Written Statement Exhibit 13. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the suit is not filed on proper court fees. It is also stated that the trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit. It is averred in the Written Statement that on 26.4.1995, the Officers of the Vigilance have checked the meter and it was found that the wiring in the C.T.P.T. were burnt and the flow of electric power were not passing through the meter and, thereby, the meter was recording the electric supply less than the ordinary consumption and it was also found that the meter was slow to the extent of 61.88% and after checking the actual consumption and previous consumption by the plaintiff, it was found that the meter was not recording the correct consumption and there was no defect in the meter, but the flow of power was not passing through the meter and, thereby, though the plaintiff was consuming more power supply, less power supply was being recorded in the meter and, accordingly, the checking sheet was prepared and the Officers of the Board have calculated the consumption of electricity and it was found that a sum of Rs.8,00,000.00odd was found to be payable by the plaintiff towards the unrecorded consumption of electricity for the period from November, 1994 to April, 1995. The said report was prepared in the presence of the technical staff of the plaintiff and they have signed this report. The objection in this respect is taken after about 2 months. According to the defendant, if the plaintiff was really aggrieved by the same, he should have applied to the Electric Inspector for checking the meter. It is also the case of the Board that the meter was not found to be faulty and, therefore, Section 26(6) would not be made applicable in the present case. On these and such other grounds the suit as well as Exhibit 5 was resisted by the defendants.