The Court ruled that cases of alleged electricity theft fall under Section 135 rather than Section 126 of the Electricity Act, stressing the importance of jurisdiction in disputed factual matters.

1.This petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution challenges the supplementary electricity bill dated 1.7.2014 (Annexure P / 1), the Panchnama (Annexure P / 2) and the interim assessment of tariff (Annexure P / 3).

2. The facts as canvassed by Shri D. K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner Hotel Adityas Ltd., is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner obtained high tension connection of 300 KV through service connection. The petitioner is paying monthly electricity bill regularly. It is stated that while giving high tension connection of 300 KV to the hotel, the service meter is installed on the electric poll, which is near to the outer gate of hotel premises. It is situated in an open space and is near about 70 ft. away from the hotel premises. The height of electric poll is 20 ft. and it is on the public place, not approachable by particular individual. For installation and providing supply of high tension connection of 300 KV, it is essential to install the CT / PT Box. This box is installed at the height of 20 ft. and is attached with high tension line of 33 KV. It is submitted that the box is covered and sealed by the respondent - authorities, which cannot be approached by any individual except the expert authorities of respondent - company. It is the case of the petitioner that before approaching the CT / PT Box, 33 KV line needs to be shut down with the prior permission of Superintending Engineer. The CT / PT box was sealed by officials of the respondents. The respondents used to conduct regular inspection of the hotel. A MR report is submitted by the team of respondent - company. The latest MR reports for the months of May and June, 2014 are filed as Annexures P / 5 and P / 6. Relying on Annexures P / 5 and P / 6, it is contended that on the date of inspection, i.e., 1.5.2014 and 1.6.2014, no deficiency or fault was found which clearly demonstrates that there was no tampering in the service line or in CT / PT box. In addition, it is urged that annual inspections by higher authority of department were conducted and during these inspections also no fault was found in the premises. It is submitted that annual inspection report is not supplied to the petitioner.

3. Shri D. K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to submit that the documents Annexure R / 5, dated 9.7.2013, 20.6.2014, 12.8.2011 and 24.4.2013 show that the sealing arrangement was found as "same". There are two heads in these documents, namely, HT meter checking / testing proforma. The heads are "as found" and "as provided". Shri Katare submits that against the heading "as found", the team has given the finding that "it was same as provided". If continuously till 20.6.2014 (Annexure R / 6) everything is found "same as provided", it is clear that there is some malicious act because of which it is alleged by the respondents that there is some tampering in the secondary box of CT / PT unit. In addition, it is submitted that one Shri Nitin Manglik, Divisional Engineer of respondent - department organized a party in the petitioner hotel on 1.5.2013. There was some quarrel between Shri Manglik and the staff of hotel. Said Shri Manglik lodged a complaint before Consumer Forum, which was ultimately rejected by Forum on 13.9.2013. Shri Katare submits that Shri Manglik had threatened the employees of hotel that the hotel will have to face consequences for the said incident. It is submitted that the impugned documents are outcome of the said incident and an example of vengeance of Shri Manglik.

4. It is urged that on 30.6.2014, a Panchnama was allegedly prepared and on the next day, i.e. on 1.7.2014, the General Manager of the hote