Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when the petitioner, Kesrisinh Amarsinh Rathod, contested the legality of a demand for Rs. 38,000 made by the Gujarat Electricity Board for electricity consumption at his tube well. The petitioner claimed that the demand was based on a defect found in the meter. The respondent's counsel referred to Condition No. 35 of the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy, which provides remedies for disconnection due to malpractice. Both parties acknowledged that the matter was pending before the appellate authority, but neither could confirm the outcome of that appeal. The court granted interim relief to the petitioner, restoring his disconnected electricity supply. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the decision of the appellate authority would be binding on both parties, and discharged the rule without costs.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Demand for Charges - Legality of Demand - Constitution of India, 1950 - The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand for Rs. 38,000 towards electricity consumption due to a defect in the meter. The court noted that the petitioner had approached the appellate authority, and the decision from that authority would be binding on both parties. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for compliance with the appellate authority's decision. (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand for electricity charges by the respondent Board is illegal and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the decision of the appellate authority shall be binding on both parties and granted interim relief by restoring the petitioner's electricity supply.
Law Points
- Electricity consumption charges
- Appellate authority decisions
- Interim relief
- Conditions for supply of electrical energy
