JAYANTIBHAI BALVANTRAM DOLI Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 17. 06. 1997 passed in Appeal No. 11/11, whereby the appellate authority had partly allowed the appeal and directed respondent no. 2 to revise the supplementary bill.

(2.) THE petitioner is running the power looms factory in Industrial Shed situated at Palav Industrial Estate of Udhna, Surat and the same is in the name of his father. The petitioner has install the electric supply with contract load of 20 HP and connected load of 16. 75 HP under Customer No. (HPI-160) 05116/00015/0. On 03. 01. 1995, the electric meter of the aforesaid connection got completely burnt and damaged due to fire in the factory premises. In order to replace the meter, the petitioner made an application dated 04. 01. 1995 and also made payment of requisite charges. On 12. 01. 1995 new meter was installed and the damaged meter was taken away by the officers of the respondents. However after a lapse of about 18 months, the said meter was tested in the laboratory of the GEB and the joint testing report was submitted. The petitioner objected to the said report and the electric supply of the petitioner was disconnected. On the basis of the said testing report, a supplementary bill of Rs. 2,44,813. 83 was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal being appeal no. 11/11 before the appellate authority, after making the payment of 30% of the supplementary bill. The appellate authority vide order dated 17. 06. 1997, partly allowed the appeal and directed respondent no. 2 to revise the supplementary bill. Hence, this petition.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the meter was burnt due to short-circuit and that he has not touched the meter at all. However, the appellate authority has observed that the petitioner was not able to satisfactorily explained as to how the meter installed has been tampered. However, in view of the laboratory report along with the consumption pattern for six months prior to the change of meter and six months after the change of meter, the power theft was confirmed. Thus, the appellate authority was completely justified in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of power theft. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the order passed by the appellate authority and find no reason to interfere with the same.