MUNAFBHAI GANIBHAI DHERIYA Vs. EXEUCTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is filed challenging the recovery of Rs. 1,78,910. 50 by way of differential electricity charges by the respondents. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent-Board. He, at the relevant point of time, was running ice-factory. As per his say, he made an application in July, 1999 conveying to the respondents that he would not be operating his factory till December, 1999. On that basis the respondents issued minimum bill to the petitioner which he has periodically paid.

(2.) IT appears that however, subsequently, the meter of the petitioner's factory was found faulty. Same was replaced and the original was sent for laboratory testing where it was found burnt. On the basis of the evidence of two months' consumption, respondents' upon objection, issued supplementary bill. During the pendency of the petition, pursuant to the order of the Court, the petitioner has paid the full amount and consequently, his electricity connection is restored.

(3.) HAVING heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and being conscious of the difficulties of the Court in tackling the disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction, I find that the issues are required to be decided afresh by the authority. This is primarily on the ground that at no stage there has been any bi-parte hearing of the contentions raised by the petitioner, nor his representation is being decided. It is the case of the petitioner that during July, 1999 to December, 1999 petitioner never operated his ice-factory and in fact conveyed to the Electricity Board accordingly in advance. Therefore, even if the meter was faulty, the petitioner cannot be charged with any additional consumption charges. Thus, contentions of the petitioner have never been examined by the authority, which under the circumstances, would be best Judge at least initially to opine on the issues.