BHAGWAN GUPTA Vs. KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANYLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder -affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the, parties both the writ petitions are being finally decided. These two writ petitions have been heard together since they raise similar issues. Writ Petition No. 22931 of 2004, Sri Bhagwan Gupta v. Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and Ors. (hereinafter referred as the first writ petition), has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the assessment bills dated 1st April, 2004 Annexures -7 and 8 to the writ petition and the order dated 10.6.2004 Annexure -12 to the writ petition, passed by the appellate committee respondent No. 2.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the first writ petition are :

(3.) SRI Ranjeet Saxena counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner contended that the assessment against the petitioner have rightly been made in accordance with paragraph 6.17.1 and 6.17.2 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002. It has been contended that the number of days have rightly been taken as 180 days in both the assessments. In the case of first writ petition the check meter was installed on 13.2.2004 which due to some electronic default did not display any reading hence it was replaced on 13.2.2004 by another check meter. It is contended that after installation of the check meter on 13.2.2004, the reading taken by the check meter was much more than was being recorded by the meter. It is contended that the number of days during which the petitioner extracted the energy being not ascertainable 180 days have been taken. With regard to second writ petition also the counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranjeet Saxena contended that number of days were not ascertainable hence 180 days were taken according to rules. Sri Saxena further contended that the load factor has also correctly been taken in the assessment. Sri Saxena contended that the appellate authority has recorded finding of fact regarding assessment and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority. Sri Saxena placed reliance on the judgment of the. Apex Court in J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar Electricity Board and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1354.