The court established that consumers must follow statutory procedures for contesting electricity theft assessments and that reconnection is contingent upon compliance with these procedures.

ORDER :

(Sunita Agarwal, CJ.) :

[1] The delay of 20 days in filing the instant appeal is explained to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay condonation application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The office is directed to allot regular number to the Appeal.

[2] The instant appeal is directed against the interim order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in permitting the re-connection of electricity supply on the deposit of 50% of the amount of the Supplementary Bill dated 03.01.2024 issued by the Respondent – Authority, on the premise of the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2023 in the case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Vs. Murlidhar Plastic Industries Through Dilipbhai Bachubhai.

[3] The Supplementary Bill was issued by the Respondent – Authority in the name of petitioner in a proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on the allegations of theft of electricity as a result of an inspection of the premises made on 01.01.2024.

[4] It is sought to by argued by Ms. Lilu K Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2023 are not applicable in rem’, inasmuch as, it was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. The learned Single Judge has erred in applying the directions therein, in toto, ignoring the facts of the instant case. It is submitted that the original petitioner has approached this Court challenging the notice dated 03.01.2024, without replying to the same, on the premise that prior to the inspection made on 01.01.2024, he made a police complaint that some third persons, his neighbours, were trying to use the electricity by making theft from the extended wire outside the premises of the petitioners.

[5] The submission is that the re-connection in a case of theft of electricity can only be made in accordance with the third proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

[6] Taking note of the above submissions, we propose to decide the writ petition on merits. The records of the writ petition has been summoned, the same has been heard and is being decided on merits.

[7] The writ petition was directed against the notice dated 03.01.2024, which was in essence, a provisional bill computed towards the usage of electricity by unauthorized means in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Clause 7.7 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulation, 2015.

[8] In the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023, having gone through the scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulation, 2015, the Division Bench of this Court has drawn an opinion that though under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code 2015, in the matter of theft of electricity and unauthorized use of electricity, there is no provision for providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee or the consumer or the person involved in the theft of electricity, and such a procedure has been prescribed in the case of suspected unauthorized use of electricity in the Code itself, but such distinction cannot be considered to deny opportunity to the assessee to dispute the computation made by the assessing officer in a matter of theft of electricity as per Clause 7.12 to 7.10 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulation, 2015.

[9] It was held that in a matter of unauthorized use of electricity, the opportunity of hearing has to be provided under Clause 7.36 to 7.37 are in the case of suspected unauthorized use of electricity, whereas, the assessment towards energy cons