1. Leave to incorporate the date of Supplementary Bill i.e. 17.10.2025 in the prayer clause.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the supplementary bill dated 17.10.2025 issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"], which is in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having an electric connection bearing Consumer No.10301031355 with Meter No.MGVCL-1450755, installed at his residential premises situated at Koliwada, Math Faliya, Jhalod, Taluka Jhalod, Dist. Dahod and he was paying all electricity bills raised by the respondent regularly.

4. On 20.9.2025, the officials and employees of the respondent Company visited the premises of the petitioner for replacement of the existing electricity meter under a routine meter replacement drive undertaken by the respondent Company pursuant to which the old meter was removed and new meter was installed. According to the petitioner, upon removal of the old meter, the same was never tested nor examined in presence of the petitioner and straightway, Supplementary Bill for an amount of Rs.2,69,982.61/- was issued against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, without supplying any inspection report, meter testing report, consumption analysis or material forming the basis of such assessment. In view of above incident, the respondent Company also filed a complaint before the Police Inspector, GUVNL Police Station on 23.10.2025.

5. Mr. A. I. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Company for giving an opportunity of hearing, however the petitioner was informed that his connection may be disconnected, in case the petitioner does not pay the amount of supplementary bill. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jayshree Talkies vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited [2018 LawSuit (Guj) 830], wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that in case of theft of electricity, the respondent authority cannot unilaterally make assessment without giving any notice to the consumer and issue a supplementary bill. He submits that the supplementary bill issued to the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before issuing the final supplementary bill under Section 135 of the Act.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the respondent Company submits that after installation of new smart meter, it was found that there was a theft of electricity by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was issued a supplementary bill. He submits that no illegality has been committed in as much as Section 135 of the Act does not provide for any opportunity of hearing. He submits that the respondent Company has also filed an FIR against the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, does not dispute the legal position as stated in the decision of this Court in the case of Jayshree Talkies (supra).

7. Considered the submissions. It is an admitted position that the supplementary bill under Section 135 of the Act has been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Jayshree Talkies (supra) has held thus :-

          "[22] The short question which arise for consideration in this appeal is whether in case of theft of electricity after disconnecting power, can the respondent authority unilaterally make assessment without giving any notice to the consumer and issue supplementary bill?. In our opinion, it cannot be.

          [23] As much as Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003 deals with malpractice other than the cases falling in the category under Section 135, procedure is prescribed under Section 126 of the Electricity. Act of 2003. Section 135 of the Electricity Act deals with offences and penalties, as such, it has not indicated the manner and method of assessment of civil liability in cases of theft of energy. Electricity Supply Code is notified by the statutory functionary under Section 50 of the Electricity Act of 2003. It is expected that the respondent authorities to follow such Code before making the assessment. It is true that there is no express provision for granting opportunity, but from a reading of Regulation 7.6.5 issued by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, it is clear that at the stage of assessment of civil liability, notice is required to be given for the consumer to give opportunity to produce evidence by the consumer to show cause why liability is not fastened for a period of 12 months preceding date of detection of theft. As much as, said Regulation empowers the assessment to be made for a period of 12 months preceding the date of detection of theft or exact period of theft whichever is less. In the Regulation 7.6.5(a), it is specifically prescribed that exact period can be arrived at by following guidelines or any other evidence which may be provided by the consumer. When the consumer is given opportunity to produce evidence to show that theft period cannot be extended to 12 months, he can produce such evidence which is with him to plead for lesser period. Such production of evidence will arise only if the consumer is given opportunity but not otherwise.

          [24] From a reading of Regulation 7.6.5 of the Regulations of 2005, it is clear that it is inbuilt, in the regulation itself to provide opportunity to the consumer before supplementary bill is raised. In case of theft of energy, respondent authorities cannot unilaterally assess loss of energy for a maximum period of 12 months in all cases without giving any opportunity. Further it is clear that civil liability determined is subject to orders of the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act. If any amount is deposited by the consumer which is excess of civil liability to be determined by the Special Court, such amount is required to be refunded to the consumer under Section 154(6) of the Electricity Act of 2003.

          [25] In view of aforesaid provision of Regulation 7.6.5 of the Regulation of 2005 which is issued in exercise of section 50 of the Electricity Act of 2003 read with Section 154(5) and 154(6) of the Electricity Act of 2003, it makes clear that in cases of theft of energy, initial assessment power is conferred on the authorities subject to provision under Section 154(5) and 154(6) of the Electricity Act of 2003. Initial assessment is to be made by the authorities by following Regulation 7.6.5 of the Regulations of 2005 notified by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that aforesaid two judgments relied by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not render any assistance in support of their plea that in the cases of theft of energy, for assessing civil liability, no opportunity need be given to the consumer. Said contention of learned Counsel for the respondent is required to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected."

8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the supplementary bill dated 17.10.2025 issued under Section 135 of the Act to the petitioner shall be treated as provisional supplementary bill and the petitioner shall file his reply to the said assessment within a period of three weeks from today. Upon receipt of reply, the respondent Company shall consider and adjudicate the same and issue the final supplementary bill to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. The adjudication shall deal with all the contentions so raised by the petitioner and by passing a reasoned order.

9. In the present case, the electricity supply of the petitioner has been disconnected. The petitioner is directed to deposit 50% amount of the supplementary bill dated 17.10.2025. Upon payment of such amount, the respondent Company shall reconnect the connection of the petitioner pending the adjudication of the supplementary bill dated 17.10.2025.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.