DEPUTY ENGINEER Vs. SAJID SALT WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to the order dtd. 10/12/2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2483 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) We have heard the arguments of Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.

(3.) Respondent no. 1 was possessing an electric meter bearing Consumer No. 03149/00450/0005-021-C having an electric connection of 75 KW, which came to be checked on 14/11/2017 by the appellant and on conducting such check by applying accuracy test of meter, it was found meter was running slow by 46.41%. Based on the same, a supplementary bill for Rs.20,72,967.00 came to be raised. Being aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Disputes Redressal and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011. The said forum recorded a finding by its order dtd. 6/1/2018 that subject meter had become slow by 46.81% as per MRI data after 19/5/2016 and held that electric bill for slow running of the meter is to be attributed to the complainant/consumer as per clause 6.33 of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission Supply Code Notification No. 4 of 2015 and restricted it to the period from 16/12/2016 to 21/6/2017 and accordingly, bill came to be raised. Being aggrieved by the same, the consumer approached the Ombudsman in Case No. 12 of 2018 who after adjudication restricted it to the period from 24/5/2017 to 18/11/2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the Electricity Company approached this Court in Special Civil Application 2483 of 2019 contending inter alia that respondent authorities had misinterpreted the provisions of clause 6.33 and 6.58 of the Regulations, 2015 read with Sec. 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provided the right of the licensee for recovering an amount which is not recovered through mistake or on account of fault occurred in meter would not get extinguished. Reiterating the contentions raised before the authority as well as before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Hasurkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that it was not even the case of the Electricity Company of the meter being defective, but on the other hand, it was the case of slackness in running of the meter or slow running of the meter and as such, the authority having found that there was slackness in the meter running by 46.81%, they could not have restricted it to a certain period and thereby usurping the right of the Electricity Company.