IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11134 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================

KANAIYALAL LAXMISHANKAR BHATT Versus APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ANR.

================================================================

Appearance:

MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR VAIBHAV SHARMA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 08/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the petition has been taken up for final hearing today.

2. By way of present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) To Admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) To quash and set aside the Judgment and Order passed by Learned Electricity Officer under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in Appeal No.-06/2008-09.

(C) Any other relief which may be deemed fit be given.”

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, on 19.07.2008, an officer of the respondent No.2 - PGVCL came to the residential premises of the petitioner and changed the old meter of the petitioner and took the old meter for checking and also filled up the checking sheet. That, as per the checking sheet dated 29.07.2008, there was some tampering in MMB sea of the meter, but as far as the body seals of the meter were concerned, there was no tampering in those seals and other any part of the meter. That, the respondent had marked in his checking sheet that there was no tampering in body seals of the meter of the petitioner and therefore, it was evident that the petitioner had not tampered with the meter and was not involved in unauthorized use of electricity or theft of the Electricity Supply. That, on 07.08.2008, the respondent had served notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1,24,793.16, within seven days of receipt of that notice. That, the petitioner had given reply to the notice of the respondent on 13.08.2008 and submitted that, as per the checking sheet of the respondent on 29.07.2008, there was tampering on MMB seals of the meter but, there was no tempering on the Body seals of the meter and any other part of the meter and therefore, no unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electric supply was possible even as per his checking sheet. That, thereafter, the respondent had written a letter to the petitioner on 22.08.2008 raising bill of Rs. 1,16,417.93, stating therein that, the petitioner would have to pay that bill within 30 days of receipt of this letter, and the petitioner can file appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within 30 days, but the petitioner would have to deposit 1/2 amount of the total bill of the respondent. That, therefore, the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 58,210 before the respondent on 22.08.2008 and filed Appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate Authority on 22.08.2009 being Appeal No. 6 of 2008-09. That, vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2009, the Electricity Officer, Rajkot directed the petitioner to pay the bill of 6388 units with double rates.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfies with the impugned Judgment and order dated 27.02.2009, passed by the Electricity Inspector, Rajkot in Appeal No.6 of 2008-09 under Section 127 of the Act, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. Heard Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, learned Assistant Govern