KHODIYAR ICE FACTORY Vs. G.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner -Ice Factory, situated at Mangrol, Dist. Junagadh has challenged order dated 03.08.2004 passed by the appellate committee of the respondent and has also prayed for direction setting aside the said order and for further directions directing the respondent to refund the amount already paid by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a consumer of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board now known as Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) under category No. 80501/55091/7 LTP -1. That originally the contract load of the petitioner was 90 H.P. It appears from the check list (Annexure -A) that officers of the respondent -PGVCL had visited the unit of the petitioner on 09.09.2003 and the connected load found to be 80 H.P. That by application dated 30.10.2003 the petitioner applied for an additional load of 35 H.P. and also paid necessary charges of Rs. 1,12,725/ -. That while the said application was pending for consideration, on 03.01.2004 officers of a special squad visited the unit of the petitioner for inspection of the electrical installations and upon undertaking such inspection it was found that the connected load is 151 HP, whereas the contract load was only 90 HP. It appears from the checking sheet (Annexure -C) that the inspection team found additional load of 61 H.P., which was unauthorized. On the basis of the said report, a special bill came to be issued to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 5,84,643/ - out of the same the petitioner deposited 50% being Rs. 2,92,250/ - on 26.02.2004 and filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee of the respondent, as per the conditions of supply than existing. That the Appellate Committee, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and upon consideration of the relevant material, including the check -list dated 03.01.2004, confirmed the said special bill by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(2.) HEARD Ms. Sudha R. Gangwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent -PGVCL.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the impugned order and has contended that in fact on 09.09.2003 when the officers of the respondent -PGVCL inspected the electrical installations of the petitioner nothing untoward was found and on the contrary connected load was found to be 80 H.P. in comparison to contract load of 90 H.P. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for additional load of 35 H.P. and also? paid requisite charges for the same. It is submitted that only after the test was conducted the extra load was used by the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent -PGVCL has not been able to prove that there is any malpractice by the petitioner. It is also contended that even though the connected load was 124 H.P. the check -list wrongly shows connected load of 151 H.P. It is therefore contended that even through there is no proof for the same, merely on the basis of suspicion the Appellate Committee has confirmed the calculation of the special bill. It is contended that the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Committee to the effect that the petitioner has committed malpractice, is erroneous as the same is not based on any material or evidence. It is however candidly submitted that the only mistake, which was committed by the petitioner, was that the test report was not submitted. It is contended that thus the finding arrived at by the Appellate Committee is based merely on assumption and without showing any cogent material and therefore it is prayed that the present petition be allowed as prayed for.