ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Shrunjal Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader,waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State- respondent No.2. Though served, nobody appears for private respondent No.1.

2 Facts in brief would indicate that the respondent No.1 was a consumer having an industrial connection with contract load of 22 kw. When an inspection was carried out by the Checking Squad on 04.08.2009, it was found that the petitioner had given part of his connection to one adjacent premises of one Bhagubhai Devabhai Ahir. Having found such supply of electricity connection being unauthorized use of electricity, the respondent No.1 was so assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.126 of the Electricity Act and a provisional bill was issued on 27.08.2009. After following the procedure as envisaged under the section, the assessment was finalized and a final bill was issued on 10.07.2012. Aggrieved by such final bill, the respondent No.1, preferred an appeal before the Electrical Inspector.

2.1 Assailing the order of the Electrical Inspector in part, Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order allowing the appeal of the respondent No.1 is without assigning any reasons and on that ground alone it should be set aside.

2.2 Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel, would also argue on merits and submit that it is a clear case as recorded in the Checking Sheet of supplying electricity across the boundary which was an unauthorized use of electricity as it amounted to resale of energy. It was even so admitted by the respondent No.1 in his representation made to the authorities.

2.3 Mr.Dave, learned counsel, would further submit that reliance by the Appellate Authority on Regulation No. 6.4.8 and 7.5.1 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC), Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, Notification NO. 11 of 2005 is misplaced. In his submission, these regulations will not apply to the assessment made under section 126 of the Electricity Act and the order impugned therefore deserves to be set aside. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs. Paras Ship Breakers Ltd., reported in 2010 (3) GLR 1917 in support of his submissions.

3 Ms.Shrunjal Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2, would defend the order and submit that the calculation sheet making the provisional assessment was done on 04.08.2009 and the final assessment was done on 10.07.2012, admittedly beyond a period of 30 days which was essentially a failure to comply with the time schedule under Sub-section 3 of Section 126 of the Act.

4 Perusing the order of the Appellate Authority, one fails to see the reason as to how the Appellate Authority has dealt with the issue. After recording the submissions of the respondent and that of the petitioner herein, the regulation in question has been quoted and the final bill has been set aside. This Court would have otherwise been tempted to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration before the authorities to pass fresh reasoned order. However, five years have gone by and no useful purpose will be served on doing so because even otherwise on merits, the following facts indicate that undisputedly there was a theft of electricity.

5 The checking sheet which is produced on record indicates that there was an admission on the part of the respondent No.1 that of the sanctioned part, part of it was extended by a cable or a wire across the boundary into the plot of one Bhagubhai Devabhai Ahir in his representation made to the authorities, the respondent No.1 had clearly admitted of this extended supply of electricity by a cable across the boundary. In the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Paras Ship Breakers (supra), the Division Bench was considering a question whether a consumer, who on its own, without any permission from th