The court clarified the interpretation of 'Malpractice' under the Indian Electricity Act and emphasized the binding nature of the conditions for electricity supply.

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, as under:

"20(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the revised supplementary bill dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure-G to this petition) in respect of Consumer Service No. 20918/00190/0 of the petitioner, as well as the order dated 4.6.2005 (Annexure-F to the petition) passed by the Appellate Committee in Appeal No. B-80/2005, which is communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 21.6.2005;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay execution and implementation of the revised supplementary bill dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure-G to the petition) and thereby restrain the officers of the respondent-Board from disconnecting electric supply of the petitioner's agricultural electric connection bearing Consumer Service No. 20918/00190/0;

(C) To award the costs of this petition;

(D) To pass such other and further orders as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice."

2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondent company has appeared through Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate and has filed Affidavit-in-reply by Deputy Engineer of the respondent company.

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 was granted electricity supply for carrying out agricultural operations in the year 1990. The petitioner used to pay the charges for electricity consumed by him for agricultural purposes for number of years. The petitioner was granted 62 HP load and accordingly entered into a contract with the respondent company.

Installation of the petitioner was checked by the Junior Engineer, Mehsana Rural Sub Division on 21/09/2004. It was found that the petitioner has made permanent arrangement to supply water, fetched from his bore well of agricultural connection to the tank of nearby under construction housing society, located approximately 150 meters away, through underground pipelines. It was found that under construction society namely Sakar Residency was collecting water, fetched from bore well of the agricultural connection of the petitioner by making underground tank of 22' x 13' x 9' size. Underground pipeline was also found connected between the field of the petitioner and the said society. Since the petitioner was granted electric connection for agricultural usage and was supplying water from his bore well by using his electric supply to nearby under construction housing society, which was not permissible, the case was treated as 'Malpractice' adopted by the consumer under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy.

A supplementary bill to the tune of Rs.5,52,286.88 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal u/s. 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and challenged the supplementary bill. The Appellate authority by its judgment dated 04/06/2005 accepted the appeal in part and directed the company to issue a fresh bill calculating the electric consumption for 8 hours a day for 183 days i.e. approximately for six months. Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that Electricity Company as well as the appellate authority have committed an error in treating the case of the petitioner as if he has adopted Malpractice in consuming the electricity supply, which is provided by the electricity company. The petitioner has provided only water to his neighbor for a short period. However, he has been issued supplementary bill for approximately six months, by applying ABCD formula, under the Indian Electricity Act.

He would submit that the case on hand, does not fall under condition Nos. 33(A)(a) or 33(A)(b) of Conditi