( 1 ) THE present petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent no. 1 Company of disconnection of electricity supply and have prayed for a declaration that the respondent no. 1 company has no power and authority to disconnect the power supply in absence of express provisions of Act or Rules framed thereunder.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no. 1 has committed breach of section 126 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2003") as the Assessing Officer has to make inspection of the premises of the petitioner, has to issue notice of hearing and thereafter only, the assessment under section 126 of the Act of 2003 can be made by the respondent no. 1 company. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the alleged theft of electricity, the respondent no. 1 company has no power of disconnection as per section 56 of the Act of 1956. The respondent no. 1 has to give at least 15 days clear notice in writing. Such notice has not been given and hence the action of the respondent no. 1 company of disconnection of electricity is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside and should be held to be illegal and dehors of the provisions of the Act of 2003. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Electricity Supply Code is not framed by the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, there is no power of disconnection of power supply with the respondent no. 1 company. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that as per section 127 of the Act of 2003, upon payment of 1/3rd of the assessed demand being deposited with the respondent no. 1 company, the respondent no. 1 ought to reconnect electricity connection and thereafter, the respondent no. 1 can finalise the assessment as per the provisions of section 126 of the Act of 2003. However, no such opportunity has been given by the respondent no. 1 company and hence the action of the respondent no. 1 of disconnection of electricity supply is illegal, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) UPON issuance of the notice, the respondent no. 1 company has appeared through their learned advocate, who mainly submitted that the prayer in the petition is only in respect of the challenge of the power or authority to disconnect the power supply by the respondent no. 1 in absence of any provisions of the Act or Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has not prayed for an assessment made by the respondent no. 1 company. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 company that under the provisions of section 21 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1910"), Conditions of Supply have been framed and the Government of Gujarat has approved conditions of supply vide its notification no. GU-94-19-AEC-1691-4208-K dated 14th October, 1994 and as per clause 22 (c) thereof, the licensee (in the present case, respondent no. 1) shall be entitled to disconnect the supply of a consumer who has indulged in malpractice. Similarly, under clause 23 (b), whenever there is a theft of energy, by any consumer, the licensee (respondent no. 1) has all power to disconnect the electricity until the amount so assessed against the theft of energy is paid by the consumer. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 company that as per Annexure "d", to the Conditions of Supply framed under section 21 (2) of the Act of 1910, a format of agreement has been given which is to be signed by the consumer and by the officer of the respondent no. 1 and as per clause 7 thereof, the condition of supply framed under section 21 (2) of the Act of 1910 is binding upon the present petitioners and, therefore, the aforesaid two clauses 22 (b) (theft of energy) and 23 (c)