JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the supplementary bill dated 21.01.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 for customer No.25231006203 be quashed and set aside.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal B. Mehta for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondents – caveators. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, both the learned advocates jointly requested that this petition be heard finally at admission stage. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents – caveators.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a proprietary concern, which is engaged in running the business of manufacturing and selling of cottonseed oil since last four years. The respondent company has granted electricity connection in the name of the petitioner proprietary concern being consumer No.25231006203 for LTMD purpose. It is stated that petitioner is regularly making payment of the bills issued by the respondents.

3.2. It is further stated that on 27.10.2020, the concerned officer of the respondent No.2 came to the place of the petitioner and inspected the premises in question. The electric meter was removed and another meter was installed. It is stated that thereafter, vide communication dated 19.01.2021, petitioner was asked to remain present at the time of checking of electric meter in the laboratory. It is stated that in absence of the petitioner the electric meter was checked in the laboratory and it was found that there was tampering with the said meter. The respondent No.2, therefore, filed FIR on 21.01.2021 against the present petitioner under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) for theft of electricity. It is also stated that on the very same day the respondent No.2 issued supplementary bill to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.50,97,336.57ps. under Section 135 of the Act and petitioner was informed to pay Rs.9,68,000/as compounding charge within stipulated time if the petitioner wants to to compound the same, failing which, it is stated that appropriate actions will be taken against the petitioner. Petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.

3.3. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, referred to and relied upon the decision dated 26.07.2018 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayshree Talkies v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. in Letters Patent Appeal No.616 of 2018 and thereafter contended that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the said decision. It is contended that before issuance of the supplementary bill to the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and petitioner was not given opportunity to place the evidence before the respondent authority. It is contended that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to show as to whether assessment of supplementary bill is to be made for a period of 12 months or for lesser period as contemplated under the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 2005'). In the present case, no such opportunity was given. It is further submitted that the meter was checked in the laboratory in absence of the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner has made his signature without any authority or any instruction from the petitioner and therefore it is not binding to the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that impugned supplementary bill issued by the respondent No.2 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from disconnecting the power supply of the petitioner till the assessment is made by the respondent authority after