NALINWALA N KHAMMIWALA Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER
LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-6
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 04,2014

NALINWALA N KHAMMIWALA Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, an electricity consumer having electricity connection consumer No.I -233 for running cinema hall has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers: (A) That the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill Annexure 'F' in its entirety and be further pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of 30% recovered by the respondents, vide Annexure 'F' second part, with interest; (B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad interim relief, restraining the respondents from enforcing and / or collecting in any manner whatsoever the remaining amount of Rs.43,711.73 ps. Vide Annexure 'H' from the petitioner and also the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from disconnecting the connection of the petitioner in the meanwhile pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition; AND (C) Any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted."
(2.) THE facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be gathered from memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under: The petitioner happened to be a partner in Cinema Hall which was run in the name of 'Sadhna Cinema'. 21 H.P. Load connection was obtained for running three shows everyday. In the month of August 1992 there was surprise checking by the officers of the electricity company and the respondent no.1 removed the meter for its laboratory testing after drawing due panchnama. It was pointed out that there was small hole in bottom of the meter and that led to raising doubts in the mind of the authority and it was termed to be a theft. Supplementary bill was raised, whereon petitioner filed appeal. Appeal was heard but the order was not communicated to the petitioner and therefore present petition was filed. As submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner when this matter was taken up for admission hearing on 9/11/1993, the Court passed an order issuing notice making it returnable on 22/12/1993 and interim relief was granted against disconnection and recovery on condition of depositing of an amount of Rs.10,000/ - by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. As per the say of learned advocate for the petitioner, petitioner accordingly deposited the amount with the company. However in the year 2006 petitioner applied for permanent disconnection and prior thereto an application was made for reduction of load also. On 4/11/2009 this Court in fact heard the parties and disposed of the matter. Operative part thereof could be read as under. "6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned supplementary bill at Ann.F issued by the respondent -Board is quashed and set aside. It is made clear that if the order of the appellate authority of the respondent -Board has not been served upon the petitioner, then the 30% of the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent -Board, will be adjusted against its future bills, within two months from today. But, if the same has been served and not challenged by the petitioner, then the respondent -Board shall not refund the amount deposited by the petitioner. However, the proof of service of the order of the appellate authority, if the same has been actually served upon the petitioner, will be communicated to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the directions of this Court, as stated herein above, will be duly complied with by the respondent - Board. The amount deposited before this Court will be refunded to the petitioner after proper verification. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute."
(3.) THE petitioner had to move one Misc. Civil Application being MCA No. 3330 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 12794 of 1993. Prayers wherein were made as under. "6. That the applicants herein therefore prays that: (A) Your Lordships may be please to admit this application and be further directed opponents to refund the entire amount of Rs.46,014/ - by an account payee cheque in the name of applicant; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the opponents to refund Rs.10,000/ - as directed in its order at the time of disposal of the main petition; (C) That any other and further relief and/or order deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed; (D) That the cost of this application be awarded" ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.