BACHUBHAI JIVABHAI RAJAPATI Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23. 07. 2004 passed by the appellate committee of the respondent-Board, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner is dismissed and the additional bill for the amount of Rs. 88,295. 62 issued by the respondent-Board was confirmed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner is running an ice factory at Sanand Industrial Zone and is having an electric connection bearing No. I-27447/04938/7 with contract load of 60 HP. On 28. 08. 2002, the respondent-Board carried out the inspection of the electrical installation and found that the petitioner has tampered with the meter. Thereafter, checking sheet was prepared and the meter was sent to laboratory for testing by the respondent-Board. Upon testing the meter, it was found that the petitioner had tampered with the meter and therefore the respondent-Board issued supplementary bill of Rs. 88,295. 62. The petitioner thereafter deposited the said amount with the respondent- Board and preferred an appeal before the appellate committee. The appellate committee vide order dated 23. 07. 2004, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the supplementary bill issued by the respondent-Board. 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 appellate committee while calculating the number of days in billing period of supplementary bill from 01. 03. 2002 to 28. 08. 2002 have not deducted the staggering days, when the petitioner had kept its unit closed during those days. On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that as per the Government Circular the 'ice Factory' has been considered as a continuous process industry and therefore, staggering is not applicable to it. Hence, the staggering holidays were not deducted while calculating the bill for the said period. Moreover, it was also found that the petitioner had tampered with the metal meter box, meter body as well as the terminal cover seals of the meter and had inserted some foreign substance in the meter from outside the meter and thereby, the petitioner committed the power theft. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am opinion that he petitioner has committed power theft and he is not entitled to any deduction of any days. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this petition, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.