LAPSI FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. G E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.M.D.Pandya, learned advocate appears and waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Mr.Mengdey, learned A.G.P. appears and waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner is a Limited Company who is a High Tension consumer of the Gujarat Electricity Board i.e. Respondent No.1. By way of the present petition the order dated 2 2/05/2001 passed by the Electrical Inspector, Surat under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is challenged on the various grounds stated in the petition as well as those which were urged during the course of hearing. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal, as provided under Section 36 of the Act which came to be rejected on 6/10/2001.

(3.) Mr.Girish Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr.Jitendra Malkan has challenged the order of the Electrical Inspector by contending that the order suffers from basic infirmity as being one which was passed without application of mind, was a non-speaking order, and the Electrical Inspector while exercising power under Section 26(6) of the Act was required to function as a quasi-judicial authority and the decision arrived at by him had to be one which a reasonable person would arrive at after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record. In support of the aforesaid contention, it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner had furnished various technical details, data and made exhaustive submissions, both factual and legal, the order of the authority did not reflect as to how the said submissions were dealt with. It was further emphasised that though the petitioner had supplied figures for an entire period of 12 months which pointed out the maximum and minimum consumption of the energy, the said figures were not taken into consideration and the order dated 22/05/2001 was absolutely silent in regard to this. It was also urged that respondent Nos.2 and 3 though represented by the learned A.G.P. had chosen not to file any reply and hence an adverse inference should be drawn.