The extension of a metered electricity connection to adjacent premises without prior permission constitutes unauthorized usage. Furthermore, appellate bodies are legally obligated to rely only on binding and current judicial precedents, and the use of stayed or extinguished orders invalidates their decisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 of Constitution of India r/w the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 challenging the impugned order dated 7.9.2022 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.2153 of 2022 under Section 127 of the Electricity Act whereby respondent No.2-Chief Electrical Inspector, Appellate Authority has quashed and set aside the supplementary bill issued by the petitioner for unauthorized use of the electricity.

3. The facts giving rise to present petition are that respondent No.1 was having an HT electricity connection bearing Consumer No.13076 with a contracted load of 1500 KVA. The installation of respondent No.1 was inspected by the representatives of the petitioner on 26.04.2018. During the inspection, it was found that respondent No.1 was utilizing electricity supply in adjacent Plot Nos.156A and 156B, which are owned by respondent No.1. Such extension and use of electricity was unauthorized and carried out without any prior intimation or permission from the petitioner.

3.1 In view of the above facts, a provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued on 03.05.2018. After granting an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 and considering its reply, the assessment was finalized on 05.06.2018 and a bill amounting to Rs.22,70,458.89 came to be issued to respondent No.1.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the said final assessment bill, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings and filed its reply opposing the appeal.

3.3 The appeal was heard by respondent No.2. However, during the course of hearing, respondent No.1 neither relied upon nor brought to the notice of the petitioner any order passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.6748 of 2010. The said order was neither pressed into service nor referred to in the pleadings or oral submissions made before respondent No.2.

3.4 It was only after the impugned order came to be received that the petitioner came to know that respondent No.2 had relied upon the aforesaid decision and, on that basis, set aside the assessment bill. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to deal with or distinguish the said judgment, and the same was considered behind the back of the petitioner.

3.5 The reliance placed on the order passed in Special Civil Application No.6748 of 2010 is wholly misplaced. The said order is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. Paras Ship Breakers , reported in 2010 (3) GLR 1917.

3.6 Against the said order passed in Special Civil Application No.6748 of 2010, a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No.135 of 2019 was preferred, which came to be admitted and the operation of the impugned order was stayed. The said interim protection continued, and subsequently, the concerned consumer paid the entire assessed amount. In view thereof, the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be disposed of in Lok Adalat.

3.7 In these circumstances, the order passed in Special Civil Application No.6748 of 2010 had ceased to have any binding effect and could not have been relied upon. Had the said order been brought to the notice of the petitioner during the appellate proceedings, the petitioner would have pointe