( 1 ) THIS group of appeals and writ petitions involve important questions relating to. interpretation of the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 as well as Sections 50, 135 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and more particularly about assessment to be made by the distribution licensee in cases of theft of electricity. Those who wish to go to our conclusions straightaway may turn to paras 21 and 22 at the end without wading through the bulk of the judgment. The rest may join us in meandering through the statutory provisions and case law for enjoying the analytical journey to the destination.

( 2 ) WHILE Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10. 3. 2005 of a learned Single judge of this Court (Coram: Hon ble Mr justice Jayant Patel ). the Special Civil applications have been ordered to be heard with the group of appeals pursuant to the order of reference made by another learned single Judge of this Court (Coram: Hon ble mr Justice M. R. Shah ). Apart from the difference of opinion (noticed in the order of reference and set out in para 6 hereinafter) between the view taken by hon ble Mr Justice Jayant Patel in the above judgment dated 10. 3. 2005 and the view taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Hon ble Mr Justice d. N. Pale!) in judgments dated 10. 9. 2004 in SCA Nos. 10007 and 10008 of 2004 in the case of Leenaben Soni v. AEC Ltd. , 2005 (1) GLR 247 and dated 15. 10. 2004 in the case of AEC Ltd. v. Ramesh D devnani, 2005 (2) GLR 1202, it also appears that the same controversy came to be considered by still two other learned single Judges of this Court Hon ble Mr justice A. L. Dave while delivering judgment dated 20. 10. 2005 in Appeal from order No. 332 of 2005 and Hon ble Mr justice Ravi R. Tripathi while giving verdict dated 30. 6. 2004 in Appeal From order No. 197 of 2004. Legislative History

( 3 ) PRIOR to the enactment of the electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "new Act" or "the 2003 Act"), while Sections 39 to 50 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1910 Act") provided for offences and penalties in prosecutions to be launched at the instance of the Government, State electricity Board or an Electricity inspector, neither the 1910 Act nor the electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1948 Act") contained any direct or specific provision indicating as to how the authority or the licensee distributing electricity may make assessment of electricity charges in cases of theft of electricity or unauthorized use of electricity. Section 26 (6) of the 1910 Act merely provided that where there was a difference or dispute about correctness of the meter recording consumption of electricity, the meter was required to be referred to the Electrical Inspector, an officer of the State Government, for his decision. In case the meter was found to be not correctly recording electricity supply, the Electrical Inspector was to estimate the electricity supplied during such time not exceeding six months when the meter was, in his opinion, not correct. It was held in several cases including the case of hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. 1998 (4) SCC 470 that Section 26 (6) only related to dispute about a defect in the meter and was not applicable to cases of malpractice and theft of electricity. Under Section 21 (2) of the 1910 Act, a licensee and xmder Section 49 of the 1948 Act, the GEB (while distributing electricity to persons other than licensee) was empowered to frame terms and conditions for supply of electricity. 1]. The Gujarat Electricity Board and the Ahmedabad Electricity Company, the two distribution licensees involved in this group, had framed their respective terms and conditions providing the formulae as to how the Board/the licensee was to charge consumers for theft of electricity and also for malpractices and providing an aggrieved consumer with the remedy of filing an appeal against the