DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED vs. SANKET ENTERPRISE

C/SCA/11349/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11349 of 2016 ================================================================ DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED Versus SANKET ENTERPRISE & 1 other(s) ================================================================ Appearance: NANAVATI AND CO.(7105) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP, (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 09/07/2019 ORAL ORDER [1] This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.1503 of 2010. [2] The issue is raised by the electric company that the consumer respondent No.1, who was having an electric connection had installed two separate meters privately and through these meters, electricity was being supplied to different occupants of the premises namely M/s. Shagun Textiles at first floor and Shree Silk Mill on the second floor. The respondent No.1 had not sought any authority for installing separate meters for these separate entities and therefore, were in breach of Electricity Supply Code. Considering such breach, upon provisional assessment, the supplementary bill was issued which was finally assessed and the bill amounting to Rs.10,60,036.95/- was issued on 31.03.2012. Page 1 of 3

C/SCA/11349/2016 ORDER [3] Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the electric company had raised specific contentions that respondent No.1 was in breach of clause- 4.1.17 and 4.8.1 of the Electricity Supply Code, the same has not been taken into consideration. [4] When the matter is called out, none appears for the respondent No.1-consumer. [5] The Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the documents placed on record. Clause 4.1.17 and Clause 4.8.1 of the Electricity Supply Code read as under:- “4.1.17 The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection/meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate Income Tax No/Sales Tax No. ration card and rent of lease agreement.” 4.8.1 The Consumer shall not without prior consent in writing of the Distribution Licensee assign, transfer or part with the benefit of the Agreement executed with the Distribution Licensee nor shall part with or create any partial or separate interest thereunder in any manner. Transfer of service connection will be effected on application in case the registered Consumer is dead or if the ownership of occupation of the property has changed of transferred. In all cases of such transfers, the arrears of every description shall be paid in full together with transfer fee as prescribed in relevant GERC Regulations.” [6] The appellate authority has taken into consideration the facts and has specifically held that the respondent No.1 was having a two storied building on plot No.203 and was using the power LT connection for industrial purpose in this building. It is also found that on the first floor M/s. Shagun Textiles was in operation and on the second floor, Shree Silk Mill was in Page 2 of 3

C/SCA/11349/2016 ORDER operation. The inspection report clearly indicates the existence of two separate electrical meters which are installed privately and therefore, though contentions before the appellate authority with regards to breach of clause 4.1.17 and 4.8.1, the same is not being addressed by the appellate authority. [7] In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the Electrical Inspector and hear appeal afresh. The parties are relegated back to the Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector. The Appellate Authority and Chief Electrical Inspector after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, shall take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [8] With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. (A.Y. KOGJE, J) SIDDHARTH Page 3 of 3