BHAILABHAI T PATEL Vs. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. K. L. Pandya, learned A.G.P appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate also waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent No.2. Upon request of the learned advocate appearing for parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has challenged the communications dated 22-4-2003 and 26-5-2004 which are produced at Annexure-B and Annexure-A respectively with the memo of the petition.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that the meter of electricity consumption has been installed at the factory premises of the petitioner by the respondent Ahmedabad Electricity Company (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent Company") with effect from 4-7-2001. The said meter was changed because of demand of the petitioner for higher load of electricity. Initially, it was for 12 H.P. and subsequently demand was made by the petitioner for additional 48 H.P. and hence the meter was changed by the respondent- Company on 4-7-2001 and New meter bearing No. 9919402 was installed. He has also submitted that on 22-4-2003 the petitioner received communication from the respondent that new meter bearing No.9919402 is having multiplying factor - 3 (three) and it was originally Multiplying Factor - 1 (one) in the old meter. But due to inadvertence the bill has been raised by the respondents by applying Multiplying Factor - 1 (one) till the date of bill of reading upto 22-4-2003. Therefore, vide communication dated 22-4-2003 it was informed by the respondents to the petitioner that a Debit Note for 1,39,836 units for the period from 4-7-2001 to 15-3-2003 amounting to Rs.5,85,3876-32 will be reflected in the next Energy Bill of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said communication, the petitioner preferred application under Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 before the Electrical Inspector but the Electrical Inspector has not decided the said application and informed the petitioner vide communication dated 26-5-2004 to the effect that similar and identical Special Civil Applications No. 14452 of 2003 and 13549 of 2003 are pending before this Court. Therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") has not been decided. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent authority has changed multiplying factor unilaterally without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and hence the communication dated and 22-4-2003 is violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India and hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.