SCA/350019/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3500 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ARVIND KANTILAL KHAMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SV RAJU for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS REETA CHANDARANA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 24/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is the consumer of the electricity. He was issued supplementary bill on the premise that there was tampering with the SCA/350019/1995 2/3 JUDGMENT Meter. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the said bill before the Appellate Committee and paid 30% of the disputed bill. 2. From fresh bill issued by the respondent which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-C to the petition, it can be seen that such appeal was disposed of and the earlier demand is reduced to some extent. Thus request of the petitioner was accepted but in part. The petitioner has paid up revised demand during the pendency of the petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal order was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, is not aware as to what weighed with the authority in disposing of the appeal. 4. Being a petition where questions of facts are involved, it would not be possible for me to hold that the disputed bill was not justified or that there was no tampering with the Meter. However, the grievance of the petitioner is equally understandable. When his appeal is substantially turned down, he has at-least the right to know reasons thereof. 5. Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of directing the respondent or its successor Electricity Company to communicate the SCA/350019/1995 3/3 JUDGMENT order of the Appellate Committee and/or reasons if any recorded in file for disposing of the appeal of the petitioner, reference to which is to be found in revised bill Annexure-C. Upon receipt of the said document, it will be open for the petitioner to take such legal recourse as may be available in law. 6. The petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)