KANAIYALAL LAXMISHANKAR BHATTversusAPPELLATE AUTHORITY

     C/SCA/11134/2009                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11134 of 2009


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

             Approved for Reporting                      Yes          No

================================================================
                        KANAIYALAL LAXMISHANKAR BHATT
                                     Versus
                          APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV SHARMA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
        PRACHCHHAK

                                   Date : 08/04/2026

                                      JUDGMENT


1.       With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the petition has been taken up for final hearing
today.

2.       By way of present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Electricity Act,
2003 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs :

         “(A) To Admit this Special Civil Application.

         (B) To quash and set aside the Judgment and Order passed by Learned


                                        Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/11134/2009                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




         Electricity Officer under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in Appeal
         No.-06/2008-09.

         (C) Any other relief which may be deemed fit be given.”


3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, on
19.07.2008, an officer of the respondent No.2 - PGVCL came to the
residential premises of the petitioner and changed the old meter of
the petitioner and took the old meter for checking and also filled up
the checking sheet. That, as per the checking sheet dated
29.07.2008, there was some tampering in MMB sea of the meter, but
as far as the body seals of the meter were concerned, there was no
tampering in those seals and other any part of the meter. That, the
respondent had marked in his checking sheet that there was no
tampering in body seals of the meter of the petitioner and therefore,
it was evident that the petitioner had not tampered with the meter
and was not involved in unauthorized use of electricity or theft of the
Electricity Supply. That, on 07.08.2008, the respondent had served
notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount
of Rs. 1,24,793.16, within seven days of receipt of that notice. That,
the petitioner had given reply to the notice of the respondent on
13.08.2008 and submitted that, as per the checking sheet of the
respondent on 29.07.2008, there was tampering on MMB seals of the
meter but, there was no tempering on the Body seals of the meter
and any other part of the meter and therefore, no unauthorized use of
electricity or theft of electric supply was possible even as per his
checking sheet. That, thereafter, the respondent had written a letter
to the petitioner on 22.08.2008 raising bill of Rs. 1,16,417.93, stating
therein that, the petitioner would have to pay that bill within 30 days
of receipt of this letter, and the petitioner can file appeal under
section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within 30 days, but the



                                      Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/11134/2009                             JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




petitioner would have to deposit 1/2 amount of the total bill of the
respondent. That, therefore, the petitioner deposited the amount of
Rs. 58,210 before the respondent on 22.08.2008 and filed Appeal
under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate
Authority on 22.08.2009 being Appeal No. 6 of 2008-09. That, vide
impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2009, the Electricity
Officer, Rajkot directed the petitioner to pay the bill of 6388 units with
double rates.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatisfies with the impugned Judgment
and order dated 27.02.2009, passed by the Electricity Inspector,
Rajkot in Appeal No.6 of 2008-09 under Section 127 of the Act, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.


5.       Heard Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Viral J.
Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 –
PGVCL.


6.       Learned counsel Mr. Purohit has submitted that the petitioner is
a consumer and he is having residential connection at his premises
and the alleged unauthorized use of electricity by the petitioner is
without there being any cogent and material evidence, for which, the
respondent No.2 has issued supplementary bill, which is illegal and
erroneous, however, during the course of hearing, learned counsel Mr.
Purohit has submitted that at the time of filing of appeal before the
Appellate Authority, the petitioner had already deposited 50% of the
bill issued against him and now, the petitioner is ready and willing to
pay the remaining 50% amount of the supplementary bill issued by


                                  Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/11134/2009                            JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




the respondent No.2. So far as the levy of interest and penal charges
are concerned, learned counsel Mr. Purohit has urged the same may
not be imposed upon the petitioner as neither there was any iota of
evidence that the petitioner has misused the electric power nor there
was any case of theft of electric power was registered against the
petitioner under Section 135 of the Act and no material was found by
the respondent and therefore, the impugned order passed by the
Appellate Authority be quashed and set aside and the present petition
be allowed.


7.       On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Dave has emphasized
upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 and
submitted that unauthorized use of electricity by the petitioner was
detected and therefore, the respondent No.2 has rightly issued
supplementary bill as there was no case of Section 135 of the Act
since there was no tampering with the meter was found, however,
since the consumption of electricity of more units by the petitioner
was established from the record, and under such circumstances, the
respondent No.2 was unable to consider the case of the petitioner. He
has further submitted that even there is no AMNESTY Scheme is right
now available to the petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled for the
benefits under the AMNESTY Scheme. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has
therefore, urged that appropriate orders may be passed.


8.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted
fact that there was no any material with regard to tampering or any
unauthorized use was found and only because of the fact that more
units were consumed by the petitioner, on the basis of that, the
respondents have calculated the usage of electricity and on the basis


                                 Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/11134/2009                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




of the same, supplementary bill under Section 126 of the Act was
issued. From the bare perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, the fact
remains that there was no tampering in Body Seals of the meter was
found and it is admitted by the respondents that no case of even theft
of electricity power under Section 135 of the Act was registered
against the petitioner and therefore, under such circumstances, since
the petitioner is a residential consumer and in past, no case is
registered against the petitioner with regard to unauthorized use of
electricity, the willingness of the petitioner to pay remaining 50% of
the supplementary bill is required to be considered.


9.          In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned Judgment and order dated 27.02.2009, passed by the
Electricity Inspector, Rajkot in Appeal No.6 of 2008-09 is hereby
modified. The petitioner is directed to deposit remaining 50% amount
of the supplementary bill issued by the respondent No.2 without any
penal charges and interest, within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of writ of this Order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. There shall be no order as to costs.


9.1         However, it is observed that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the present order is passed and it should not be set as
precedent in any other matter.
            Direct service is permitted.

                                                                    (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/04/2026 18:03:15


                                                    Page 5 of 5