JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.06.2020 passed by the Assistant Electric Inspector in Appeal No.5 of 2019.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1, who is having RGPR category consumer being Consumer No.81451/10110/4. The respondent No.1 is having 3Q connection with total contracted load of 20 K.W., and the said electric connection which is provided to the premises of the respondent No.1, which is known as “Janish Farm” situated at Talala Sasan Road, Talala Highway, Gir. On 26.10.2018, the checking squad of the petitioner-Company visited the premises of the respondent No.1 and it is alleged that respondent No.1 was found in indulging in unauthorized used of electricity for commercial purpose and accordingly, a provisional supplementary bill of Rs.58,674.42 dated 01.11.2018 was issued and after considering the objection of the respondent No.1, a final supplementary bill of the same amount was issued on 14.12.2018. Being aggrieved by the final supplementary bill, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Assistant Electric Inspector being Appeal No.5 of 2019, in which, the Assistant Electric Inspector by its judgment dated 23.06.2020 quashed and set aside the final supplementary bill.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dave, appearing for the petitioner - Company has submitted that the Appellate Authority has not considered the policy of home stay declared by the Government of Gujarat, Department of Tourism dated 20.11.2014, more particularly clause 5(2). It is submitted by him that as per the Panchnama, the petitioner was having 12 rooms, and there was electricity in all the rooms, and hence, it was found that since the same was used for commercial purpose for 12 rooms, the supplementary bill was accordingly prepared. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Appellate Authority should have considered that the respondent No.1 has unauthorizedly used the electricity, since he is running a hotel in the farmhouse and has constructed the aforesaid rooms, including one swimming pool, one kitchen, one kids garden etc. It is submitted that for the same premises two licences are issued under the home stay to two persons viz., Mr. Ashishbhai Bhimbhai Nandaniya and Mrs. Prabhaben Bhimbhai Nandaniya, and hence, the impugned order may be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference, since before taking any action against the respondent No.1, the petitioner-Company should have verified all the aspects from the Tourism Department, which has given permission to run the home stay. He has referred that by the order dated 30.01.2018, the Tourism Department has granted approval for 6 rooms to one Shri Ashishbhai Bhimbhai Nandaniya and vide order dated 06/17.10.2017 approval has been granted for 6 rooms to Mrs. Prabhaben Bhimbhai Nandaniya i.e. the respondent No.1. He has further submitted that since there was a dispute with regard to the electricity connection and supply, the Manager (Commercial) of the Tourism Department vide communication dated 28.08.2018 has informed the Executive Engineer of the petitioner Company that as per the clause 12(2) of the Home Stay Policy, the electricity can only be charged as per domestic rates. He has submitted that despite the aforesaid communication, the petitioner-Company or the Executive Engineer did not verify all the aspects from the Tourism Department, and hence, after looking all these aspects, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal by quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill issued by the petitioner - Company, and hence, the writ petition may not be entertained.

5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents.

6. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute that by the orders dated 06/17.10.2017 and 30.01.2018, the respondent No.1