PATEL PARSHOTTAMDAS VANMALIDAS Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application has been filed for the following reliefs:

(2.) For the purpose of the disposal of this case it is unnecessary for us to elaborately refer to the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that there is a contractual obligation between the petitioner and the respondent-Board in respect of supply of electricity to the petitioner herein. Conditions 34 and 35 which are being questioned as ultra vires the Constitutions and arbitrary are conditions to which the petitioner is a party. It is the definite case of the respondent-Electricity Board that the petitioner by inserting a plastic material stopped the functioning of the meter and thereby committed theft of electricity. The power supply was disconnected as early as 11-12-1986. It is also the say of the Electricity Board through its counsel that this is the second occasion on which the petitioner has committed the theft of electricity.

(3.) The third occasion of electricity theft was also found out and a notice has also been issued by the respondents herein. The question whether such act was committed by the petitioner or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in this Special Civil Application. As a matter of fact it is admitted by the petitioner that he actually filed a suit and also prayed for an injunction therein but subsequently after the trial Court has vacated the injunction it already granted he has withdrawn that suit and has come forward with the present Special Civil Application. Thus we are of the view that we cannot go into the factual questions that arise in this case regarding the theft of electricity etc. and the petitioner has efficient and efficacious remedy by way of a suit to agitate such matters. When the counsel for the petitioner is confronted with this observation of this Court he confined his argument Only to Condition No. 34 of the conditions of supply of electricity by the Board to the petitioner. Condition No. 34 for the purpose of this case is extracted in part. They are to the following effect: