VATSAL RAMESHBHAI FOZDAR Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Special Civil Application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner - consumer for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee of the Gujarat Electricity Board (as existed at the relevant time) in Appeal No.B/37 of 2004 as well as to quash and set aside the supplementary bill issued by the respondent dtd.13/4/2004.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present Special Civil Application, in nutshell, are as under :-

(3.) PRESENT petition is opposed by Ms.J.K. Hingorani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent GEB. It is submitted that as such the appellate committee has not committed any error and/or illegality in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the appellate committee is on appreciation of evidence and considering the submissions made by the petitioner and considering the checking report as well as the inspection report of the laboratory and even calculationsheet. It is submitted that when it was found that there was no MMB Seal and the meter body seals were found tampered with and seals of the meters body as well as seals wires were found cut and there was no terminal cover and when it was found and so stated in the checking report that even the terminal block which was screwed were found opened frequently, and considering the above when it was found that case of theft of electricity has been proved and established and thereafter when the supplementary bill has between issued, no illegality has been committed by the appellate committee in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that as such the appellate committee has partly allowed the appeal by modifying the ratio of load factor and diversity factor as C/B for lighting, heating and for cooling load. It is submitted that as such the respondent Board has issued supplementary bill strictly s per the condition No.34 of the Condition of Supply and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent and hence interference of this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not warranted. It is submitted that as such well reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the appellate committee, which is consisting of experts and hence the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.