IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8184 of 2004 with CIVIL APPLICATION No 6419 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- SHREE REVATGIRI JAIN BHOJAN SHALA Versus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 8184 of 2004 MR TV SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MS LILU K BHAYA for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 2-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL Date of decision: 23/09/2004 C.A.V. JUDGEMENT 1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a charitable registered Trust, is providing food, the persons came to visit Holly Mountain Girnar Derasar, it is basically a "Bhojanalaya". It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the said petitioner is having four rooms and osari on the ground floor. The petitioner has not committed any theft of electricity. The Bhojanalaya is not being run at night hours because the gents do not take the same after sunset. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that no meter test report of the laboratory shows that there was no scratches mark on the figures of the meter nor was there any report that the meter was running solely. This aspect of the matter has not appreciated by the Appellate Committee, and hence, the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1 - Board deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that if there is any dispute as to whether the meter is showing correct figure of consumption, then Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, only the Electrical Inspector has got power, jurisdiction and authority to decide and not the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1 - Board. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Appellate Committee and hence, the Appellate Committee has passed the order, is required to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Appellate Committee has not applied true and correct criteria for A X B X C formula. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that after the new meter is change. The consumption of electricity reflected in the new meter is lessor number of unit then what was done in the old meter. This reflects that there was no tempering with the old meter and hence, the order passed by the Appellate Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Upon issuance of the notice, the respondents have filed an affidvit-in-reply. It is contended by the learned advocate for the respondents that when the meter was changed, a rojkam was drawn. The petitioner himself has placed the said document on record vide Annexure-B with the memo of the petition. It has been noted on the said rojkam dated 17.12.2001, by the officer of the respondents, to the effect that the seal wire of the meter has been broken. The said rojkam has been signed by representative of the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondent that joint laboratory report was also given to the petitioner, which reflects that in presence of a representative of the petitioner. The said meter was examined and it was mentioned in the said report that the meter body sealed, has been tampered and has broken. It is also reported in the laboratory report that there were scratch marks upon the figure of unit, tens and hundreds in the meter and it was concluded that in the present case there is a theft of electricity. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the respondents that thus, the site rojkam and laboratory report makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has tampered with the meter and thereby has committed the theft of power and hence, the order passed by the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1 - Board is true, correct and legal and may not be interfered with, by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for both the parties and I have perused the papers and affidvit-in-reply. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a matter of fact that the site rojkam was drawn on the day when the meter of the present petitioner was checked, which is dated 17.12.2001. As per the rojkam, which is signed by the representative of the petitioner as well as officer of the respondent - Board, it is referred that the seal wire of the meter was broken, thereafter the meter was sealed and the said seal meter was examined in the laboratory in presence of the representative of the petitioner, which also confirmed the fact that the meter body seal was tampered and broken. Upon internal examination of the said meter, it was found that there were scratch marks upon the figure of the meter, which shows the reading of the consumption, especially on the figures of unit, tens and hundreds. Therefore, in my view, considering the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1, which is of tampering with the meter and theft of power, is established. Initially, it was contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the laboratory inspection report, which is referred in the order of the Appellate Committee, has never been supplied to the petitioner and hence, notice was issued. From the affidavit-in-reply vide Annexure-II, it is clear that the representative of the petitioner was present and has counter signed the said laboratory inspection report. Thus, the full opportunity of being heard was given by the respondent - Board to the petitioner. There is no error in applying A X B X C X D formula by the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1 - Board, while passing the order and there is no infirmity in the said order. There is no error in the said order passed by the Appellate Committee much less an error apparent on the face of the record. On the contrary, the order passed by the Appellate Committee is true and correct and in consonance with the facts and law. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in the present petition and hence, it is, dismissed. Notice is discharged. In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.8184 of 2004, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly. [D. N. Patel,J.] (vijay)