M/S. DEVIKRUPA STONE CRUSHERversusTHE PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED

     C/SCA/16481/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16481 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

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

             Approved for Reporting             YesNo
                                                    ✔
==========================================
                M/S. DEVIKRUPA STONE CRUSHER
                             Versus
           THE PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
==========================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS RUMI M GANDHI(3472) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 04/05/2026

                            ORAL 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 final hearing.

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


                                  Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/16481/2023                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




           (a) Be pleased to admit this petition.

           (b) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other
               appropriate writ, direction or order, under Art. 226 of
               the Constitution of India, by quashing and setting
               aside the supplementary bill No. 12491 dt. 2-3-2023
               for Consumer No. 82126-00-214-4 issued by
               respondent.

           (c) Be pleased to direct the respondent to provide an
               opportunity of hearing as per Rule 26 read with Rule
               7.6 and 7.7 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory
               Commission, 2015.

           (d) Be pleased to direct respondent authority to decide
               “civil liability” on the alleged theft of electrical energy,
               afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to
               petitioner.

           (e) Be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as
               deem just and proper.

4.       Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is doing a
business of stone crushing and having its factory at Khatia Beraja
Village and having industrial electric connection and the petitioner
paying the electricity bill regularly. It is the case of the petitioner that
the officers visited the factory premises and carried out checking of
electrical connection and they found that a wire came to be pass by
fixing another cable from main lines and hence alleged theft of
electric energy and panchnama was prepared and checking sheet was
prepared. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the
checking report, the respondent issued                  supplementary bill for
Rs.1,10,34,710.69         paise     and      if     compounding       charges         of
Rs.18,12,336/- was paid within seven days, the respondent may not
file criminal case and thereafter the respondent asked to pay
Rs.1,28,47,046.69 paise. It is further the case of the petitioner that
criminal complaint was lodged and the petitioner protested the action

                                      Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/16481/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




and with a view to avoid disconnection requested for payment of bill
by installments and deposited the said amount. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent requested the Police Inspector that
since amount was paid, offences compounded and no further action
may be taken. The petitioner filed this petition for quashing the
impugned bill.

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

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts
which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted
that on the basis of the checking report, the respondent – PGVCL
issued supplementary bill for Rs.1,10,34,710.69 paise for assessment
of presumed consumption of 702021 units during last 365 days for
alleged theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and informed the
petitioner that if compounding charges of Rs.18,12,336/- was paid,
criminal complaint would not be filed. He has submitted that in all
Rs.1,28,47,046.69 paise was asked to pay by the PGVCL and criminal
case was lodged, for which, the petitioner protested the action and
with a view to avoid disconnection requested for payment of bill by
installments and the PGVCL requested the Police Inspector GUVNL
Police Station that since the amount was paid, offences compounded
and no further action may be taken by the police authorities. He has
submitted that the respondent has committed grave error in
misreading and misconstruing the provision of Section 135 of the Act
and filed the FIR against the petitioner for theft of electricity.

6.1      In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred and
relied upon the provision of Section 154(5) and Section 135 of the Act

                                  Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/16481/2023                           JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




more particularly the emphasized upon the observations made in
paras 22, 23 and 24 by the Division Bench of 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 offence was registered
against the petitioner and when the offence 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


                                Page 4 of 5
      C/SCA/16481/2023                                                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




 counsel has referred and relied upon the orders passed by this Court
 in Special Civil Application No.2763 of 2026 and Special Civil
 Application No.12351 of 2021 and submitted that the petition being
 meritless deserves to 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 file 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 05/05/2026 17:12:55




                                                          Page 5 of 5