HIFZUL REHMAN MORISWALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      C/SCA/2607/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2607 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================

             Approved for Reporting             Yes No
                                                    No
==========================================
                  HIFZUL REHMAN MORISWALA
                              Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
FOUZAN N SONIWALA(8442) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANGESH PANCHAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 16/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives notice of
rule on behalf of the respective respondents.


2.       With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken for hearing.


3.       Present petition is <led by the petitioner seeking the following



                                  Page 1 of 4
      C/SCA/2607/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




reliefs:-

(A)        Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this
           application.

(B)        Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
           certiorari or any other writ to quash and set aside the order
           dated 16.03.2024 passed in Appeal No. 23 of 2017 passed by
           the Respondent No.3 and further be pleased to quash and set
           aside the supplementary bill being No. 2483 dated 05/09/2017
           issued by the respondent No.2 – power company.

(C)        Your Lordships may be further pleased to direct the
           Respondent No.2 to refund the amount deposited by the
           present petitioner in connection to the supplementary bill
           being No. 2483 dated 05/09/2017 issued by the Respondent
           No.2.

(D)        Pending admission, hearing and 0nal disposal of this petition
           Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation,
           execution and implementation of order dated 16/03/2024
           passed in Appeal No. 23 of 2017 passed by the Respondent
           No.3 and the supplementary bill being No. 2483 dated
           05/09/2017 issued by the respondent No.2 – power company.

(E)        That this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to pass such and
           further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may
           require.


4.       Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner has an
electricity      connection   being     customer    No.32303/01456/5.         The
petitioner has received supplementary bill of Rs.2,21,635.73 issued by
the respondent – company alleging electricity theft and tampering
with the meter seals. That during their festival, the electricity supply
was disrupted due to fault in the service line caused by tripping
between the face-neutral wires and despite multiple complaints to the
respondent – company, no action was taken. It is the case of the
petitioner that due to sickness of his sister, he engaged private


                                      Page 2 of 4
     C/SCA/2607/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




technician to reconnect the electricity and following the temporary
repair of the electricity supply, he had <led an application for re-
sealing and the respondent – company replaced the old meter with
new meter and at that time, no evidence of tampering or theft was
found and the process of changing the meter was conducted without
any adverse <nding against the petitioner. It is also the case of the
petitioner that the respondent – company conducted a lab test on the
old meter of the petitioner, which result into the MMB seal was
tampered and there were marks of tampering on the terminal block
screws. Thereafter, the respondent – company issued a <nal
assessment bill which is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and hence, the
petitioner had <led an appeal before the Appellate Authority under
Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which came to be partly
allowed.


5.      Being aggrieved and dissatis<ed by the order passed by the
Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.


6.      Heard Mr.Fouzan Soniwala, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Angesh
Panchal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3.


7.      Having considered the facts of the case and averments made in
the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the impugned order passed by the
competent authority, it appears that the petitioner has <led this
petition challenging the supplementary bill issued by the respondent –
company on the basis of the consumption by the petitioner which was
found to be true on the basis of the laboratory report wherein the
authority has recorded that the meter was tampered with and MMB

                                Page 3 of 4
        C/SCA/2607/2025                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




 seal was also tampered with and on the basis of checking sheet, the
 supplementary bill under Section 126 of the Act was issued. It
 emerges from the record that after considering the submissions and
 explanation given by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has partly
 allowed the appeal and reduced the amount from Rs.2,77,044.66
 paise to Rs.2,21,635.73 paise. This Court is of the view that there is
 no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
 Appellate Authority as the same was passed considering the facts of
 the present case and the submissions made by the respective parties.
 Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to
 interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the
 petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.


 8.          In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
 Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith.

                                                                       (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 V.R. PANCHAL



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 16:51:37




                                                           Page 4 of 4