THAKORE K PATEL Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Deepak Dave for Mr.A.D.Oza, learned Advocate appears and waives service of Rule. At the request of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioner's premises was visited by the officers of the respondent Board on 31/12/1998. After inspection of the premises, it was recorded by the officers of the respondent Board that the meter of electric consumption installed at the premises of the petitioner was running slow by 39.55% and further that the meter had been tampered with resulting into theft of electricity. The said meter was replaced by another meter and the old meter was sent for laboratory test. The finding of the laboratory test shows that prima facie recording that the meter had been tampered with was correct and theft of the electricity had actually taken place. A supplementary bill of Rs.3,55,430.13 ps. was issued. The petitioner preferred an appeal and on payment of 30% of the supplementary bill the Appeal was entertained by the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee confirmed the finding as regards the theft, but in relation to the computation portion the Appellate Committee recalculated the factors B x C by directing that the said figure should be adopted at 0.648. As a consequence a revised supplementary bill was issued which has been admittedly paid up by the petitioner in installments.

(3.) Mr.Bharda, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the finding regarding calculation of factor BxC as well as the period for which the consumption pattern has been adopted as basis for arriving at revised calculation. It was submitted that the petitioner having specifically submitted data in his written submission, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to deal with the grievance made by the petitioner and record its reasons for not accepting the same. That the order was entirely silent and no reason whatsoever was assigned as to why the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were not acceptable.