Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the computation of assessed electricity charges. The case, involving a dispute between the petitioner and Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVC), emphasized that the restoration of electricity supply must be contingent upon the payment of assessed charges as per Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, delivered the judgment, affirming the previous decisions and rejecting the petitioner’s appeal.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner argued that the assessment of electricity charges was conducted without granting them an opportunity for a hearing. They contended that the final bills were prepared without their involvement, challenging the fairness of the computation process. The petitioner also claimed that they were unfairly denied the chance to contest the charges, citing a lack of procedural fairness.

Additionally, the petitioner criticized the computation process outlined in the Electricity Code, 2015, and pointed out that the charges were assessed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, which pertains to electricity theft. They argued that the assessment and subsequent disconnection of electricity were unjust, particularly since they had made partial payments towards the assessed amount.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondent, DGVC, countered the petitioner’s claims by presenting evidence of electricity theft, including tampering with the meter and unauthorized use of electricity, which led to an FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The company argued that the petitioner had manipulated the system to restore their electricity supply without fully paying the assessed charges.

DGVC pointed out that the petitioner had not availed themselves of the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, which requires the deposit of half the assessed amount to challenge the computation. The company emphasized that the restoration of electricity supply should not occur unless the petitioner complied with the payment provisions of the Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the respondent and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had manipulated the system to restore their electricity supply without making the full payment of the assessed charges. The bench noted that the petitioner had made only partial payments and had concealed facts regarding the payment of the remaining amount when filing the appeal.

Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the petitioner’s arguments about not receiving a hearing were insufficient. They emphasized that the restoration of electricity supply must comply with statutory requirements, which include full payment of assessed amounts as mandated by Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act. The Court also criticized the petitioner for attempting to circumvent legal requirements by filing the appeal while concealing their partial compliance.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea and affirmed that the challenge to the assessment could not be entertained through the appeal process. The ruling reinforced the principle that adherence to statutory payment requirements is essential for restoring electricity supply and contesting assessed charges.