IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2607 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No No ========================================== HIFZUL REHMAN MORISWALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================== Appearance: FOUZAN N SONIWALA(8442) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANGESH PANCHAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 16/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken for hearing. 3. Present petition is <led by the petitioner seeking the following p. 2 reliefs:- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ to quash and set aside the order dated 16.03.2024 passed in Appeal No. 23 of 2017 passed by the Respondent No.3 and further be pleased to quash and set aside the supplementary bill being No. 2483 dated 05/09/2017 issued by the respondent No.2 – power company. (C) Your Lordships may be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to refund the amount deposited by the present petitioner in connection to the supplementary bill being No. 2483 dated 05/09/2017 issued by the Respondent No.2. (D) Pending admission, hearing and 0nal disposal of this petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of order dated 16/03/2024 passed in Appeal No. 23 of 2017 passed by the Respondent No.3 and the supplementary bill being No. 2483 dated 05/09/2017 issued by the respondent No.2 – power company. (E) That this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to pass such and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 4. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner has an electricity connection being customer No.32303/01456/5. The petitioner has received supplementary bill of Rs.2,21,635.73 issued by the respondent – company alleging electricity theft and tampering with the meter seals. That during their festival, the electricity supply was disrupted due to fault in the service line caused by tripping between the face-neutral wires and despite multiple complaints to the respondent – company, no action was taken. It is the case of the petitioner that due to sickness of his sister, he engaged private p. 3 technician to reconnect the electricity and following the temporary repair of the electricity supply, he had <led an application for re- sealing and the respondent – company replaced the old meter with new meter and at that time, no evidence of tampering or theft was found and the process of changing the meter was conducted without any adverse <nding against the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent – company conducted a lab test on the old meter of the petitioner, which result into the MMB seal was tampered and there were marks of tampering on the terminal block screws. Thereafter, the respondent – company issued a <nal assessment bill which is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and hence, the petitioner had <led an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which came to be partly allowed. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatis<ed by the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 6. Heard Mr.Fouzan Soniwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Angesh Panchal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3. 7. Having considered the facts of the case and averments made in the petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order passed by the competent authority, it appears that the petitioner has <led this petition challenging the supplementary bill issued by the respondent – company on the basis of the consumption by the petitioner which was found to be true on the basis of the laboratory report wherein the authority has recorded that the meter was tampered with and MMB p. 4 seal was also tampered with and on the basis of checking sheet, the supplementary bill under Section 126 of the Act was issued. It emerges from the record that after considering the submissions and explanation given by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount from Rs.2,77,044.66 paise to Rs.2,21,635.73 paise. This Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as the same was passed considering the facts of the present case and the submissions made by the respective parties. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL