The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appellate Authority erred in reducing the periods of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity, as defined by the provisions of Sec.126, Sec.126-B, and Sec.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

ORDER :

1. Heard Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Balram Jain, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Rohan Shah, learned AGP, for the respondent No.2.

2. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Electricity Company, has challenged the orders of the Appellate Authority by which the authorities have directed the electricity company to set off certain period while computing the bill for unauthorized use of electricity.

3. For the purposes of this order, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 15721 of 2014 be considered.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner Electricity Company that the respondent No.1 was having connection for industrial purposes. On 11.07.2012, when checking was carried out by the installation squad in the premises of respondent No.1, it was found that the respondent No.1 was illegally supplying electricity to the premises of Plot No. 365 owned by one Shri Harshit Chandrakantbhai Jhariwala.

3.2 Having found that the respondent No.1 had carried out unauthorized use of electricity, on the basis of Checking Sheet dated 11.07.2012, a provisional bill under Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (‘the Act’ for short) was issued on 12.07.2012. The bill was for an amount of Rs.4,14,207.06 ps.

3.3 In accordance with the provisions of Sec.126 of the Act objections were invited. The respondent No.1 was heard on 20.07.2012 and a final bill for the amount was issued.

4. Aggrieved by this, the respondent No.1, preferred an appeal before the Electrical Inspector, Surat - the Appellate Authority under Sec.127 of the Act. It was the case of the respondent before the Appellate Authority that since Proforma-15 was filled in for merger of single phase and three phase meter on 02.04.2012, the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012 should not have been computed for the period of the bill for the purposes of unauthorized use of electricity. The stand of the electricity company, the petitioner, was that once it was admitted by the respondent No.1 and based on the checking sheet it was found that there was unauthorized use of electricity, there was no reason for reducing the bill period for the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012.

5. Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner – electricity company would submit that reading of the order of the Appellate Authority would indicate that it was undisputed and even an admitted position on the basis of the checking sheets signed by the respondent No.1 that though the electricity connection was for plot No. 366 for industrial purposes, there was supply of electricity across the boundary to plot No.365 which admittedly was an “unauthorized use” in accordance with the provisions of Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5.1 Taking the Court through the order of the Appellate Authority, she would submit that once having conclusively found that the use of electricity was unauthorized, merely because of merging of single phase to three phase for the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012 could not have been ground for reduction of the bill for the aforesaid period on that count.

5.2 In support of her submission, Ms.Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner- electricity company, would rely on two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 2014 in the case of Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs. Rajan M Shah, and in Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2014 in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs. Shree Vardhaman Salt Works.

6. Dr.Balram Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1, at the outset, requests for time on the ground that the amounts as per the bill originally assessed have been paid and he would want time to take instructions and place on record documents to suggest such payments. Looking to the orders passed in these petitions, over a period of four years from 2015, the request made by the learned counsel was refused. He, therefore, made submissions on merit to state that the