Heard Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. On previous occasion, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court, present proceedings may not be entertained, at this stage, until the proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court are decided.
It appears from the record that on 30.11.2011 also, a submission on the same line was made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
Thereafter, on 16.7.2012 and prior to that, same submission was made by learned counsel for the respondent.
3. While keeping the said aspect open for consideration, in light of the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the Electrical Inspector to pass appropriate order and also having regard to the fact that the Electrical Inspector has, by the order impugned in present petition, passed certain directions against the petitioner company, time was granted to the petitioner company to place on record the calculation as per the directions passed by the Electrical Inspector in the impugned order. It was understood that the calculation which may be placed on record will be without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner company.
In response to the order dated 16.7.2012, Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has placed on record two statements under a note dated 30.7.2012 signed by her.
4. Mr.
Kavina, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the statement placed on record by the petitioner does not appear to be in consonance with the directions passed by the Electrical Inspector.
5. It transpires from the said statement that the petitioner has made calculation of the alleged dues w.e.f. July-2010. Whereas, from the order of the Electrical Inspector, it appears that the period in question would be, in one case prior to October-2006, in second case prior to October-2006, in third case prior to February-2008 and in fourth case October-2009. However, from the calculation made by the petitioner in the statement which is placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has considered the period from July-2010 to June-2012.
Since the Electrical Inspector has directed the petitioner vide impugned order "to issue revised bills for unathorized usage of electricity in each case with applicable tariff rate multiplier and charges already paid by the petitioner in regular monthly bills towards unauthorized consumption", it is necessary that the petitioner company clarifies as to whether the calculation is made by applying the tariff rate multiplier (as mentioned in statement at page-108 of the petition) and whether the bills in question covers the period prior to the dates (as mentioned in 2nd column of the statement at page-108 of the petition) mentioned in the Electrical Inspector's order or not.
6. The petitioner shall, with the aforesaid clarification, place the said statement on record under affidavit of the concerned responsible officer.
So as to remove any doubts, it is clarified that the details which may be placed on record by the petitioner, will be without prejudice to all rights and contentions of the petitioner and will not create any right in favour of the respondent to raise any contentions against the petitioner in light of or on the strength of the statement, which may be placed on record.
Time until 6.8.2012 is granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose.
The concerned responsible officer shall also clarify that the statement is made in consonance with and in compliance of the directions contained in the impugned order.
S.O.
to 6.8.2012.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc