JUDGMENT :

1. This petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, has been filed by the Electricity Company challenging the order dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority and the Electrical Inspector, Surat in Appeal No. 11-2009-10.

2. Facts in brief would indicate that on 08.04.2009, the connection of the respondent no.1 was checked in his presence and it was found that between RI & BI phase main door copper link was provided from inside as shown in the checking sheet. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a serious irregularity amounting to theft of electricity. The checking sheet was signed by the consumer. On 09.04.2009, a provisional bill was issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On 16.04.2009, the respondent no. 1 filed objections in the provisional bill. It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.05.2009, the meter was sent for laboratory inspection and the laboratory report specifically mentioned that on terminal block back side, a phase copper link was inserted and the meter has been bypassed. This laboratory report therefore would categorically come to suggest that the respondent no. 1 had indulged in theft of electricity. The respondent no. 1 approached the consumer forum who by order dated 18.07.2009 directed the electricity company to issue a fresh bill. Accordingly a fresh provisional bill was issued on 17.08.2009. In this provisional bill too the petitioner raised objections on 25.08.2009. The final bill was issued of Rs.4,25,950.99. It was a subject matter of challenge before the Electrical Inspector and the appeal has been allowed.

3. This order is assailed by the petitioner – electricity company through the submissions of Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner which are as under:

(a) This is a clear case of theft of electricity as can be seen from the checking sheet wherein it was found that from inside a copper link had been inserted thereby tampering with the meter wiring. The final bill on 07.12.2009 was a bill therefore to be considered as one issued in a case falling under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and not Section 126.

(b) The Electrical Inspector has by treating the case under Section 126 made an inadvertent mistake and assumed jurisdiction though the modus operandi as per the laboratory report and the checking sheet suggested unauthorized use of electricity which was however a dishonest intention and fell squarely under Section 135 of the Act. Once it was not a case under Section 126 of the Act, the finding of the appellate authority that the final bill not having issued within 30 days was an incorrect finding.

(c) It was specifically a case of theft of electricity and therefore the Electrical Inspector had no authority to entertain the appeal when the bill was issued under Section 135 of the Act and merely because though evidently theft is written on the bill it cannot be treated under Section 126 of the Act.

(d) This is a case where a permanent arrangement was made to see that correct consumption is not recorded in the meter while providing link between RI and BI phase. The bill having been quashed as not being issued within the stipulated time of 30 days as provided under Section 126 is a finding without authority of law and the Electrical Inspector has travelled beyond jurisdiction when it was not a case of unauthorized use of electricity but a case of tampering with the meter falling under Section 135 of the Act.

3.1 In support of her submissions, Ms. Bhaya would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer and Another vs. M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill [AIR 2012 SC (Civil) 489] to suggest that the Electrical Inspector failed to appreciate the distinctions between Sections 126 and 135 of the Act. She would rely on paragraphs no. 15 to 17 of the decision. Also a decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 18064 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 20522 of 2006 dated 07.09.2016 has been reli