Unsubstantiated Allegations of Electricity Theft Do Not Validate Revised Bills: Gujarat High Court

Proof Over Presumption: High Court Rejects Arbitrary Electricity Theft Claims

The High Court of Gujarat has reaffirmed that utility providers cannot unilaterally levy massive supplementary bills based on mere speculation of meter tampering. In a judgment delivered on January 21, 2026, by Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai, the court dismissed an appeal filed by the Pashchim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (formerly G.E.B.), which sought to enforce a disputed bill of over ₹10 lakhs against a local ice factory.

The Conflict: A Factory, A Meter, and a Disputed Bill

The dispute originated in 1995 when the electricity board’s checking squad visited the Mulraj Ice Factory. While local inspection yielded no immediate evidence of irregularity, the meter was sent to a laboratory for further testing. The utility claimed that a "green substance" and the potential ability to insert a plastic strip into the meter casing constituted "theft of energy."

Following this report, the utility initially issued a bill of approximately ₹2.17 lakh, which was subsequently cancelled and replaced with a revised supplementary bill of ₹10.07 lakh while the legal proceedings were already underway.

The Arguments: Burden of Proof

The appellants argued that the laboratory findings provided prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction of energy under Section 33B of the Indian Electricity Act. They contended that the consumer had tampered with the device to facilitate the theft of power.

Conversely, the respondents maintained that the checking squad’s own field report had noted no tampering, and the laboratory conclusion relied entirely on "presumptions and assumptions." The factory owners argued that the utility failed to provide any credible evidence to justify the massive, unexplained jump in the supplementary load calculation.

Legal Analysis: The Weight of Evidence

The High Court’s analysis centered on the absolute necessity of the utility proving its allegations of theft. Justice Desai noted that the utility’s assertion of dishonesty remained a "positive assertion" that the provider was legally obligated to prove.

Crucially, the Court highlighted: 1. Lack of Original Evidence : The field checking squad’s initial report specifically recorded a "negative" finding for the presence of foreign material or meter tampering. 2. Failure to Explain Calculations : The utility could not provide a cogent justification—neither in its written statement nor through testimony—for the substantial recalculation of the load factor that led to the revised bill. 3. Procedural Inadequacy : The failure to produce the individual who actually conducted the laboratory test as a witness weakened the utility's case significantly.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a sharp reminder to utility providers regarding the threshold for alleging criminal activity against consumers:

• "Defendants’ assertion is that the plaintiffs have dishonestly used electric energy. Such positive assertion has to be proved by the defendants and not negatively proved by the plaintiffs."
• "Only on report that a plastic strip can be inserted in the gap between meter cover and glass is not sufficient to establish that consumer was involved in the activity of theft of electric energy."
• "The burden is upon the appellants to indicate such mistake in calculation of load factor. Witness of appellants has not even explained such mistake being committed while issuing first bill."

Final Verdict: No Precedent for Arbitrary Actions

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decree, which ordered the utility to return the deposited amounts with 12% interest. By vacating interim reliefs and dismissing the plea, the Court signaled that without concrete, demonstrable proof of tampering, electricity providers cannot treat consumers with broad-brush allegations of theft.

This ruling serves as a vital shield for consumers, ensuring that utility infrastructure remains subject to the rigorous standards of evidence required in civil litigation. As the Court clarified, these findings are restricted to the peculiar set of facts presented and do not serve as a general precedent for all future metering disputes.