STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 1981 passed by the learned single Judge (Coram : N. H. Bhatt, J.) partly allowing the petition by restraining the appellant No. 2 from recovering the electricity dues in respect of the units consumed by the respondent-petitioner company for the benefit of the people of village Sevalia, while holding that the appellant No. 2 was entitled to claim electricity duty in respect of the units consumed for the purpose of residential and office premises in Sevalia village.

(2.) The respondent had challenged the notice dated 3rd November, 1976 at Annexure-C to the petition, in so far as it relates to the item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The said notice was issued by the Collector of Electricity Duty, Ahmedabad with reference to a claim for refund which was made by the respondent-company and it was stated therein that while scrutinising the refund claims, recoveries as per the details given in the said notice were noted by the office and out of total, the sum of Rs. 4,72,643-90 Ps. which was recoverable, it was proposed to adjust the refund claims of Rs. 1,85,567-11 Ps. resulting into net recovery of Rs. 2,87,076-79 Ps. The respondent-company was called upon to remit the said amount.

(3.) The case of the respondent-company was that an agreement was entered into between the company and 23 villagers of village Sevalia under which electricity was to be supplied free to the villagers by the company as stated in the agreement. The company was generating electricity for its own use, which was under the agreement also supplied to villagers of Sevalia. The contention of the respondent was that in view of the definition of word 'consumer' as contained in Sec. 2(a) of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 only a person who was supplied electricity on payment of charges could be considered as a consumer. According to the respondent, the definition did not contemplate supply of the electrical energy free of charge and, therefore, the villagers of village Sevalia to whom the energy was supplied by the company free of charge could not be termed as consumers. It was further contended that in view of the provisions of Sec. 3(2)(vii)(a) of the said Act, the respondent-company was not liable to pay any electricity duty for 10 years from the date of commencement of the Bombay Electricity Duty (Gujarat Amendment) Act, which was 1st April, 1961. It was also contended that the petitioner was a licensee and, therefore, was not required to collect electricity duty from the villagers of Sevalia supplied to them free of charge under the provisions of Sec. 4(2) of the Act.