K.M. Thaker, J. - (1.) This petition was listed on 20.7.2018. Mr. R.P.Raval, learned advocate appeared for HL Patel Advocates for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the respondent was not present on 20.7.2018. After making submissions at length, Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner sought time to take instructions as to whether the petitioner would prefer to approach the appellate authority against the revised bill or wants to prosecute the petition. So as to enable learned advocate for the petitioner to take instruction, time was granted and vide order dated 20.7.2018, the Court adjourned the proceedings to today. The said order dated 20.7.2018 reads thus: Learned advocate for the respondent has filed sicknote. Learned advocate for the petitioner also needs time to take instruction. Therefore, hearing is adjourned. S.O. to 27/7/2018. 1.1 It appears learned advocate is not conveyed clear and specific instructions. Therefore, he would submit to pass appropriate order in light of submissions already urged by him. 1.2 Learned advocate for the respondent was not present on 20.7.2018. Today also, learned advocate for the respondent is not present. On 20.7.2018, it was submitted that learned advocate for the respondent had filed sick note. Today, though learned advocate for the respondent has not filed leave note or sick note, she is not present.
(2.) In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: 9b) Declare and set aside the order Dt. 24/12/03 of Appellate Committee, GEB. c) To order GEB to pay back the amount of money [Rs.12,64,000.00] wrongly taken from us along with 9% interest from 03/01/2004. d) To remand back the matter to Appellate Committed for re consideration.
(3.) So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.1 electricity company. In pursuance of the request by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has granted HT connection. 3.1 It appears that subsequently, within the premise of the petitioner company, another undertaking came to be established namely, Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. It is not in dispute that said Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. is an associate sister company of present petitioner. It is not in dispute that the unit of the said other undertaking (Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd.) is established within the precincts of petitioner company. 3.2 The petitioner company, however, claims that it is an associate company and that it is, of course, incorporated and registered as a separate legal entity i.e. as a private limited company, whereas the petitioner is public limited company. Under the circumstances, the fact that the said other undertaking is a separate and distinct legal entity is not in dispute. 3.3 It is also not in dispute that the said other undertaking i.e. Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. had, at the relevant point of time, when the dispute arose in or around December 2003, had not applied for separate connection and it was not a separate and independent consumer of the respondent electricity company. 3.4 The petitioner would further claim that the said other undertaking occupies the premise on lease basis and it is tenant of the petitioner company. 3.5 According to the petitioner, since the said other undertaking is its tenant, it was not necessary for the said other undertaking (Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd.) to apply for separate connection. 3.6 It is not in dispute that the petitioner supplied electricity/power to the said undertaking and the petitioner would claim that the said undertaking i.e. Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. used electricity (petitioner's HT connection) as its tenant. 3.7 In this background, a checking squad of the respondent company visited the premises in question. The checking squad noticed aforesaid arrangement. The said arrangement was reported to the competent authority/company. According to the respondent company, the said arrangement amounted impermissible sale of electricity. Therefore, the respondent company issued notice/supplementary bill. 3.8 Feeling aggrieved by the said notice/ supplementary bill by the respondent company, present petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority heard the parties and decided the appeal (Appeal No.A/118/2003) vide order dated 24.12.2003. By the said order, the appellate authority held that though the action and conduct of the petitioner (and said other undertaking) may not amount to sell / supply of electricity by the petitioner, however, it would, prima facie, amount to contravention of service condition and may fall within purview of malpractice. 3.9 With the said observation, the appellate authority permitted the respondent company to issue supplementary bill. Thereafter, the respondent company issued another supplementary bill in January 2004 (i.e. supplementary bill dated 3.1.2004). It is claimed that the said supplementary bill is issued on the premise that the petitioner committed contravention of supply condition and/or malpractice. 3.10 Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority and the supplementary bill, the petitioner has taken out this petition. ;