IBRAHIM ABDUL LATIF SUPEDIWALA Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a consumer of electricity having electricity connection No.33703107685 for residential use. The Deputy Engineer, Installation Checking Squad, Town SubDivision, Dhoraji checked the said connection on 12.2.2004 and seized the meter, and upon examination in the laboratory, one lead seal was found to be duplicate; embossing of GEB letters did not match in appearance in proper size, scratches on a totaliser by means of sharp instrument were also found. According to respondent, tampering with the meter from outside as well as with the inner mechanism was found and, therefore, a supplementary bill in the sum of Rs. 1,71,790.87ps came to be served upon the petitioner as per condition No.34 of the supply of electricity. Dissatisfied with this bill, the petitioner's power of attorney Shri Ajij Tayab Dhundh approached the appellate authority by lodging an appeal on 21.6.2004, copy of which is produced at Annexure "D".

(2.) VARIOUS contentions were raised and the appellate authority by its order dated 21.6.2004 rendered a decision partly allowing the appeal but maintained the fact as to tampering with the meter by the petitioner. The copy of the order passed in appeal is produced at Annexure "E". Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner is before this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT was also submitted that the petitioner himself resides at Mumbai and seldom comes to Dhoraji, and he was not present when the meter was seized, as also when the meter was put to laboratory testing. It was submitted that the person who was named in the document, and who was present on behalf of the petitioner, was not authorised by the petitioner to remain present during the laboratory testing, neither his power of attorney was asked to be present and that there was no evidence with the respondent to establish that the person who remained present during the laboratory testing was a person authorised by the petitioner. In his submission, therefore, the authority did not comply with the principles of natural justice, and exparte, the meter was tested to the prejudice of the petitioner and, therefore, the bill raised upon such faulty testing was required to be set aside by the appellate authority, and the appellate authority having failed in its duty, this Court should exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.