Excess electricity consumption constitutes unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which prevails over conflicting provisions in the Supply Code.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Present appeal is preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent Act to assess the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.4.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 1634 of 2019.

2. The prayers as made by the appellant-original writ petitioner in the writ petition was to issue writ or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2018 passed by the learned Electric Inspector-appellate authority in Appeal No. 6 of 2018-19.

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions on behalf of both the parties was pleased to dismiss the writ petition observing that no case was made out for interference. This order is assailed in the present appeal.

4. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the appellant-original writ petitioner Company is the distribution licencee and engaged in the transmission of electricity. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' for short) is a consumer of the petitioner having consumer number 15113026867. The respondent had applied for and was granted electricity connection with contracted load of 17 KW. On 19.5.2018, a surprise inspection was carried out at the premises of the respondent by the Officials of the petitioner Company. During inspection it came to notice that the respondent was using 51.243 KW load instead of the sanctioned load of 17 KW, which was 34.243 KW in excess of the sanctioned load limit.

5. In the wake of the inspection carried out by the officials of the petitioner Company, a checking-sheet, in presence of the respondent, was drawn and a provisional assessment was made with regard to the electricity charges payable by the respondent. The Assessing Officer, considering the change in the tariff, provisionally determined an amount of Rs.3,03,750/-as being payable for the unauthorized use of electricity. Subsequent to the provisional assessment, the respondent had a right to submit objections within 7 days, which were not submitted by the respondent. Therefore, a final order of assessment came to be passed by the Assessing officer of the petitioner Company, determining an amount of Rs.3,03,750/-as payable by the respondent.

6. Being aggrieved by the final order of assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Act, which came to be numbered as Appeal No. 19/2017-18. The appellate authority observed that the respondent was using electricity, which was more than the sanctioned load, but it has opined it was a case of breach of Clause-4.95 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Code' for short). We may note that Clause 4.95 of the Supply Code which required the distribution licensee to issue notice to the respondent to determine the load required by the consumer of a specific sanctioned load. The appeal was, thus, allowed observing that the petitioner was required to issue notice to the respondent calling upon the respondent i.e. consumer to prefer an application for enhancement of sanctioned load.

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.8.2018, the petitioner preferred writ petition which came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 1634 of 2019. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 18.4.2019 observed that no case was made out for interference in favour of the petitioner Company and, therefore, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and hence this appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate with Ms. Manvi Damle, learned advocate for M/s. Nanavati & Co., for the appellant and Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate with Tusharkumar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the respondent.

9. Mr. Maulik G.Nanavati, learned advocate ap