ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Be pleased to admit this petition.

(b) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill No. 12491 dt. 2-3-2023 for Consumer No. 82126-00-214-4 issued by respondent.

(c) Be pleased to direct the respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing as per Rule 26 read with Rule 7.6 and 7.7 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2015.

(d) Be pleased to direct respondent authority to decide “civil liability” on the alleged theft of electrical energy, afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

(e) Be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as deem just and proper.

4. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is doing a business of stone crushing and having its factory at Khatia Beraja Village and having industrial electric connection and the petitioner paying the electricity bill regularly. It is the case of the petitioner that the ofÏcers visited the factory premises and carried out checking of electrical connection and they found that a wire came to be pass by fixing another cable from main lines and hence alleged theft of electric energy and panchnama was prepared and checking sheet was prepared. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the checking report, the respondent issued supplementary bill for Rs.1,10,34,710.69 paise and if compounding charges of Rs.18,12,336/- was paid within seven days, the respondent may not file criminal case and thereafter the respondent asked to pay Rs.1,28,47,046.69 paise. It is further the case of the petitioner that criminal complaint was lodged and the petitioner protested the action and with a view to avoid disconnection requested for payment of bill by installments and deposited the said amount. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent requested the Police Inspector that since amount was paid, offences compounded and no further action may be taken. The petitioner filed this petition for quashing the impugned bill.

5. Heard Mr.Sandip Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that on the basis of the checking report, the respondent – PGVCL issued supplementary bill for Rs.1,10,34,710.69 paise for assessment of presumed consumption of 702021 units during last 365 days for alleged theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and informed the petitioner that if compounding charges of Rs.18,12,336/- was paid, criminal complaint would not be filed. He has submitted that in all Rs.1,28,47,046.69 paise was asked to pay by the PGVCL and criminal case was lodged, for which, the petitioner protested the action and with a view to avoid disconnection requested for payment of bill by installments and the PGVCL requested the Police Inspector GUVNL Police Station that since the amount was paid, offences compounded and no further action may be taken by the police authorities. He has submitted that the respondent has committed grave error in misreading and misconstruing the provision of Section 135 of the Act and filed the FIR against the petitioner for theft of electricity.

6.1 In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred and relied upon the provision of Section 154(5) and Section 135 of the Act more particularly the emphasized upon the observations made in paras 22, 23 an