ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the notice dated 13.08.2021 along with supplementary bills amounting to Rs. 1,18,83,571.70 issued by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the proprietor of M/s. Chetak Industries which is engaged in manufacturing of PVC garden and suction pipes and that on 07.08.2021, the officer of respondent no. 1 visited the premises of the petitioner to inspect the meter and prepared a checking sheet stating that the meter was running slow. Thereafter a joint laboratory testing was done and on 13.08.2021, the respondent authorities disconnected the power supply of the petitioner’s company and a checking sheet was prepared again wherein in the first part it is stated that the meter was running slow based on which the impugned supplementary bill was issued under the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. Ms. Khyati Chugh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the forensic inspection of the meter was done, it was clearly concluded that there is no tampering with the device meter in any manner. She submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to follow the provisions of the Electricity Act and therefore the impugned action of the respondent authorities is bad. She has relied on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 20000 of 2018 on 26.02.2021 in support of her submissions.

5. This court in Special Civil Application No. 20000 of 2018 has observed as under:

“5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that when the officers of the respondent-electricity company have visited the place of the petitioner on 27.10.2018 and when the meter was checked, it was found that there was tampering with the meter and after the said meter was tested in the concerned laboratory, it was found that it is the case of tampering with the meter and therefore FIR is filed against the proprietor of the petitioner and supplementary bill in question has been issued. Thus, as per the case of the respondent, the case is covered under Section 135 of the Act:

“Section 153 - Constitution of Special Courts:

(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification.

(2) A Special Court shall consist of a single Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a Special Court unless he was, immediately before such appointment, an Additional District and Sessions Judge.

(4) Where the office of the Judge of a Special Court is vacant, or such Judge is absent from the ordinary place of sitting of such Special Court, or he is incapacitated by illness or otherwise for the performance of his duties, any urgent business in the Special Court shall be disposed of:

(a) by a Judge, if any, exercising jurisdiction in the Special Court.

(b) where there is no such other Judge available, in accordance with the direction of District and Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the ordinary place of sitting of Special Court, as notified under Sub-Section (1).

Section 154-Procedure and power of Special Court:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed.

(2) Where it appears to any court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishabl