A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, as under:

"16(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 4,40,297.38 (at Annexure-A hereto) as well as order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the Appellate Committee (at Annexure-B hereto);

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1-Company to permit the petitioner-Firm to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (under section 111 of the Electricity Act) or Appellate Authority (under Section 127 of the Electricity Act) without taking into account the aspect of delay in preferring the same;

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent company not to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner-Firm;

(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through their respective lawyers and have opposed to grant any relief, as prayed for, by the petitioners. Affidavit-in-reply, Affidavit-in-Rejoinder and further Affidavits have been filed by the respective parties.

3. Brief facts, arise from the record, are as under:

The respondent company is in the business of distribution of electricity supply to its consumers for different purposes. The petitioner had applied for electricity connection for 120 HP, which was granted by the respondent company.

Junior Engineer of respondent No. 1 company had visited the premises of the petitioner-Firm on 17/11/2004 and all the machineries including meter were checked in presence of partner of petitioner No. 1. It was found that the petitioner-industry was using excessive load of 66.77 HP and accordingly Rojkam was prepared in presence of petitioner No. 2 and the same was signed by him, without any protest.

Since it was found that the petitioners have used the load exceeding the contracted one, the case was treated as 'Malpractice' under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy and, accordingly, supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 4,40,297.38 ps. was issued to the petitioners.

The said Supplementary bill was challenged by the petitioners by way of filing an appeal being Appeal No. B-106/2005 before the Appellate Committee. Appellate Committee by its order dated 20/07/2005 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition.

4. Ms. Nirali Oza, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, would submit that electricity company as well as the Appellate Committee have committed an error in treating the case of the petitioner as if they have adopted "Malpractice" under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy.

4.1 She would submit that the authority has not considered a specific avernment raised by the petitioner that when checking was done, the premises was closed and was not in working condition. She would submit that when Rojkam was prepared on 17/11/2004, though petitioner No. 2 was present, his electrician was not present and, therefore, he could not raise any objection with regard to meter, load of electricity supply, etc. and, hence, the Appellate Committee ought to have considered the case of the petitioners.

4.2 She would submit that the Officers, who had prepared the Rojkam, have note down excess load of 66.77 HP, without any material. She would submit that the incident is of 17/11/2004 and, therefore, Electrical Inspector is a competent authority to decide the appeal as per Electricity Act, 2003, hence, the impugn