( 1 ) RULE. Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 waives the service of rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition has been taken up for final hearing to day.

( 2 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside supplementary as well as revised bills Annexures A and E respectively, and for declaration that the action of the Gujarat Electricity Board -respondent no. 1 herein and its officers is illegal, contrary to law, unwarranted, null and void. A prayer is also made to quash and set aside an order dt. 15th March, 1999 passed by the Appellate Committee in Appeal No. B. 240/98-99 and by directing the respondent -Board to refund an amount of Rs. 92,532. 00 already deposited by the petitioner with the Board along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p. a. A further prayer was made restraining the respondent from disconnecting electricity supply provided to the petitioner for industrial purposes.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is running a textile factory at 68, Sonal Industrial Estate, Pandesara, Udhana, Surat. The petitioner was having electric connection for industrial purposes i. e. for lighting as well as running his factory. According to him, on 9th March, 1994, a checking squad of the respondent Board inspected the factory of the petitioner and took away the meter by applying seal for testing by a Laboratory of the Board. The petitioner was not present at that time. According to him, signature of a person was taken who had no authority to sign, nor he was a representative of the petitioner. A supplementary bill was then issued to the petitioner on the allegation that there was theft of electric power by the petitioner. The said bill was for Rs. 4,62,614-65 Ps. On 6th April, 1994, the electric connection was restored on deposit of 20% of the amount of supplementary bill by the petitioner who preferred an appeal.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Appellate Committee, it was strenuously argued by the petitioner that the supplementary bill was liable to be cancelled and/or withdrawn as the petitioner had not committed any illegality or irregularity, particularly when the meter was not tested by the Laboratory. It was stated that the meter was not traced and did not reach the Laboratory and could not, therefore, be tested. The appeal was, however, partly allowed on load factor and days/hours charged in the supplementary bill. Accordingly, a revised supplementary bill was issued on April 23, 1999 in pursuance of an order passed by the Appellate Committee. The petitioner has challenged the above order by filing the present petition.

( 5 ) WHEN the matter was placed for admission before this court, my learned brother D. C. Srivastava, J. issued notice on April 13, 1999, and made it returnable on 14th May, 1999. On 18th May, 1999, ad-interim relief was granted in terms of Para 11 (E) i. e. against disconnection of electric power on certain terms and conditions.

( 6 ) I have heard Mr. D. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 7 ) MR. Mehta submitted that the petitioner had not committed theft of electricity and no theft was proved. He contended that the only method by which a theft could be proved was the report of the Laboratory. For that the meter was taken for testing. It, however, could not be traced and could not be tested in the Laboratory. According to the Counsel, unless the evidence which could connect the petitioner with the theft of electricity is adduced, appreciated and proved, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing theft of electricity and could not be punished. As it was not done, the orders passed by the authorities are required to be quashed.

( 8 ) HE also submitted that when the checking squad came, the petitioner was not present. His brother was present. But he had no authority to make any statement, as he was neither