Champaben Bharatbhai Dalal vs Deputy Engineer (O And M)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6094 Guj

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/947/2023                               ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023

                                                                                    undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 947 of 2023
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1137 of 2023
                                   With
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1137 of 2023
                                     In
               SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9328 of 2015
==========================================================
                       CHAMPABEN BHARATBHAI DALAL
                                 Versus
                        DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M)
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR BALRAM D JAIN(3146) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
           SUNITA AGARWAL
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                             Date : 19/08/2023

                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The Letters Patent Appeal is delayed by 78 days. Apart from hearing the counsel for the appellant on the explanation offered for delay, we have heard the matter on merits.

3. The learned single Judge in the judgment impugned categorically records that it was a case of unauthorised use of electricity connection, which was given to the appellant for industrial purposes in the premises of plot No. 364. In the checking made on 11.7.2012, the copy of the checking sheet was appended alongwith the writ petition, it was clearly

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/947/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023

undefined

indicated that connection of plot No. 364 was also used to supply power for 4.806 kv load for plot No. 365, which was owned by a separate entity, which evidently had a separate electricity connection. The notings in the checking sheet further indicated that even the appellant had admitted the same by putting his signature thereon.

3.1 The proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, had then been initiated for unauthorised use of electricity and against the computation made by the competent authority, appeal was filed. It is recorded in the order of the learned single Judge that even the appellate authority had recorded a finding that it was a case of unauthorised use for the period of assessment from 2.4.2012 to 11.7.2012. In the said scenario, there was no reason for the appellate authority to reduce the period of assessment and, thus, to reduce the computation made by the assessing authority.

4. Shri Balram Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned single Judge did not grant opportunity to argue the matter, inasmuch as, time sought by the counsel for the appellant, was not granted. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant does not appeal to us for the reasons given by the learned single Judge in para 6 of the judgment itself. We may further record that on merits, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not a case of tampering, inasmuch as, plot No. 365 to which the supply of electricity was made, was also owned by the appellant. This explanation offered by the counsel for the appellant to assail the order passed by the learned single Judge, is merely a vain attempt in absence of any cogent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/947/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023

undefined

material in substantiation thereof. The order of the appellate authority suffers from inherent fallacy, inasmuch as the connection, in question, was for industrial purposes for the premises situated on plot No. 364. Any adjacent plot or premises could not have been energised by the electricity connection which was with respect to a particular purpose.

5. As the factum of use of electricity supply of power for 4.806 kv load for plot No. 365 owned for separate entity having separate electricity connection is admitted, we do not find any infirmity in the opinion drawn by the learned single Judge that appellate authority had no jurisdiction to truncate the period of assessment as determined by the assessing authority.

6. For the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed both on the count of delay as well as on merits. The Civil Application also stands dismissed, accordingly.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI