LAHERI SALIM YUSUFversusDEPUTY ENGINEER

      C/SCA/2763/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2763 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

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

             Approved for Reporting             Yes  No
                                                     No
==========================================
                     LAHERI SALIM YUSUF
                            Versus
                      DEPUTY ENGINEER
==========================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 16/03/2026

                               JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.


2.       With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken up for 7nal hearing.


3.       Present petition is 7led by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-


                                 Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/2763/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




     (A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow
         the present petition.

     (B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
         writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus
         or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
         thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned
         letter     dated       23.12.2025      being      Letter
         No.DGVCLSDANK / 0143 / 12 / 2025 issued by the
         Deputy Engineer (Operations and Maintenance),
         Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Ankleshwar (O
         and M), Sub-Divisional O6ce, Bharuch as also
         supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 issued therewith
         for theft of electricity of Rs.54,04,788.24 committed
         by the petitioner at 1080 R.O. Plant situated at near
         Falaha Masjid, Ankleshwar as well as the impugned
         reply dated 03.02.2026 issued by respondent pursuant
         to written representation dated 17.01.2026 made by
         petitioner holding the same to be in violation of
         principles of natural justice and against the provisions
         of sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Electricity Act,
         2003 in the interest of justice.

     (C) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ
         of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or
         any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby
         kindly directing the respondent or such other o6cer
         authorized in that behalf to decide the written
         representation dated 17.01.2026 made by the
         petitioner afresh after following due process of law by
         providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
         and to thereafter take a fresh decide within such time
         that may be deemed to be >t and expedient to this
         Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

     (D) Pending admission, >nal hearing and disposal of the
         present petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
         pleased to stay the supplementary bill dated
         22.12.2025 issued by respondent and further be
         pleased to direct the respondent to forthwith
         reconnect the electricity supply which has been
         disconnected in the premises being 1080 5 R.O. Plant
         situated at Near Falaha Masjid, Ankleshwar of the
         petitioner in the interest of justice.




                              Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/2763/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




          (E) Ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(D) may kindly be
              granted.

          (F) Any other order/s that may be deemed >t and
              expedient may kindly be passed in the interest of
              justice by this Hon’ble Court.



4.      The facts of the present petition are that the petitioner is
running R.O. Plant and he has 2 R.O. Plants, out of which 1 R.O. Plant
is non-working since it is purchased and installed. It is also the case of
the petitioner that he had applied for electricity connection for
commercial use and 3 phase connection was provided with 7 kilo
watts with metre No. DGC 93564 for the R.O. Plant by the
respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running 1 R.O.
Plant from 2022-2023 and he had purchased another R.O. Plant from
Hydropedia Private Limited which needed more electricity and
therefore he sought 25 KW from 7 KW and load was increased by
DHVCL. It is the case of the petitioner that he had also purchased De-
Mineralised Plant, however, the same was never started and 2 nd R.O.
Plant was never made functional and at 7.55 a.m., the respondent
carried out an inspection and checking of electricity use done by the
petitioner and it was found that the petitioner has committed
irregularity for which o?ence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,
2003 has been made out for theft. It is also the case of the petitioner
that respondent issued notice along with supplementary bill for the
theft along with theft calculation sheet and the petitioner has no
knowledge about the inspection at his premises which was closed on
22.12.2025. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had made
representation before the respondent, for which the respondent gave
reply and an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for theft
of electricity. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 23.12.2025 and the



                                  Page 3 of 6
      C/SCA/2763/2026                           JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 for theft of electricity without
there being any representation on behalf of petitioner an no
opportunity of hearing was granted, the present petition is 7led.


5.       Heard Mr.Vaibhav Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the
material placed on record.


6.       Mr.Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also
submitted that the letter dated 23.12.2025 along with supplementary
bill and reply dated 03.02.2026 given by respondent with regard to
theft of electricity is against the law and evidence on record. He has
submitted that the respondent has acted in mechanical and illegal
manner by passing the provisions of Section 135(2) and (3) of the Act
without application of mind. He has submitted that the respondent
has committed grave error in misreading and misconstruing the
provision of Section 135 of the Act and 7led the FIR against the
petitioner for theft of electricity. He has submitted that in the letter
written by the respondent, it has been stated that there was theft of
electricity and therefore the case was registered against the
petitioner, however, considering the fact that the respondent issued
supplementary bill after reassessing the usage of energy under
Section 126 of the Act and not under Section 135 of the Act and
hence, this Court may consider the petition.


6.1      In support of his submission, Mr.Sheth, learned counsel has
referred and relied upon the provision of Section 154(5) and Section
135 of the Act more particularly the emphasized upon the
observations made in paras 22, 23 and 24       by the Division Bench of

                                 Page 4 of 6
     C/SCA/2763/2026                           JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 616 of 2018 and has urged
that the petition be admitted and interim relief be granted in favour of
the petitioner.


7.      On the other hand, Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that when the supplementary bill issued
under Section 135 of the Act, it is the case of the respondent that
there was theft of energy and, therefore, the o?ence was registered
against the petitioner and when the o?ence relating to Section 135 to
Section 140 of the Act, the petitioner has to challenge before the
Special Court by way of preferring the special civil suit. He has
submitted that when the civil liability is arisen, the Special Court is
empowered to take action into the matter and petition is not
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Gandhi,
learned counsel has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court
in the case of Mukeshbhai Laljibhai Nashit Vs. Dakshin Gujarat
Vij Company Limited reported in 2020 (0) GUJHC 34870 : 2020
(0) JX(Guj) 622 and submitted that this Court in the said decision
has observed that there being statutory remedy available under the
Act, the resort to petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not be
entertained, the Special Court has power to determine the civil
liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money for theft
of energy. He has submitted that under such circumstances, let the
petitioner may approach before the appropriate forum by preferring
the special suit as provided under Section 154 of the Act. He has
submitted that this Court, while deciding Special Civil Application No.
18787 of 2022, has dismissed the petition considering the statutory
remedy available to the consumer under the Act. Mr.Gandhi, learned
counsel has submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to

                                Page 5 of 6
      C/SCA/2763/2026                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026




be dismissed.


8.        In view of the settled legal principles pronounced by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
Limited Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with similar set of facts and
ultimately annunciated the principle that when there is implication of
Section 135 to Section 140 of the Act, the Special Court can try
constituted under Section 153 of the Act.


9.        Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a view to enable him
to take appropriate recourse by preferring appropriate proceedings
before the Special Court as provided under the Act.


10.       In view of the above, permission as sought for is granted. The
petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to the
petitioner to 7le appropriate proceedings before the Special Court
constituted under the Act and raise all legal contentions which are
raised in the petition permission under the law. The concerned Court
shall decide the Special Suit in accordance with law and on merits.
Rule is discharged. It is needless to say that this Court has not gone
into merits of the matter.

                                                                    (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 18/03/2026 16:18:44




                                                        Page 6 of 6