R K INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th May, 2003 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Energy and Petrochemicals Department, State of Gujarat in Appeal No.5 of 2003 preferred by the Gujarat Electricity Board, Kalol ("the Board" for short) now respondent No.2 - the Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited under section 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ("the Act" for short) against the order made by the Electrical Inspector under section 26(6) of the Act.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that since the old meter at the factory premises of the petitioner was not recording correct consumption of electricity, the petitioner raised dispute under section 26(6) of the Act before the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector found that the meter at the premises of the petitioner was not only running fast to the extent of 4.49% but it also recorded consumption in absence of load. Therefore, the Electrical Inspector passed order dated 6.3.2003 directing the Board to refund the amount for the period of six months before the date of 7.10.2002 till the meter is replaced for fast running of the meter to the extent of 4.49 % and also to refund the amount for 14839.2 units (for six months consumption recorded in the meter without load). The said order was challenged by the Board before the Deputy Secretary under section 36(6) of the Act. The Deputy Secretary though did not interfere with the order directing refund for fast running of the meter to the extent of 4.49%, however, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order as regards refund of the amount of 14839.2 units. This part of the order is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Pradeep J. Patel for the petitioner submitted that the order for refund of the amount for 14839.2 units is disturbed simply on the ground that it was the responsibility of the petitioner consumer to properly maintain the capacitor and the meter has recorded consumption on account of not properly maintaining capacitor by the petitioner. Mr. Patel submitted that such was never the case of the Board before the Electrical Inspector. Mr. Patel submitted that the Deputy Secretary has interfered with the order made by the Electrical Inspector just on the basis of the contention raised by the Board in its appeal without there being any fact finding inquiry. Mr. Patel submitted that the observation made by the Deputy Secretary about not properly maintaining capacitor by the petitioner is not on the basis of any material. Mr. Patel submitted that even otherwise, the capacitor is placed at the installation just to see that there is smooth supply of electricity to the unit and, therefore, even if it was believed that the capacitor was not properly maintained, in absence of use of electricity by the unit, there was no question of recording of consumption by the meter. Mr. Patel thus urged that the Deputy Secretary committed serious error in interfering with the order made by the Electrical Inspector on the ground not germane for deciding the question about the refund of the amount for the above said units and without any evidence for deciding such question. Mr. Patel thus urged to allow the petition.