IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2763 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No No ========================================== LAHERI SALIM YUSUF Versus DEPUTY ENGINEER ========================================== Appearance: MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 16/03/2026 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 7nal hearing. 3. Present petition is 7led by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- p. 2 (A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. (B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 23.12.2025 being Letter No.DGVCLSDANK / 0143 / 12 / 2025 issued by the Deputy Engineer (Operations and Maintenance), Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Ankleshwar (O and M), Sub-Divisional O6ce, Bharuch as also supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 issued therewith for theft of electricity of Rs.54,04,788.24 committed by the petitioner at 1080 R.O. Plant situated at near Falaha Masjid, Ankleshwar as well as the impugned reply dated 03.02.2026 issued by respondent pursuant to written representation dated 17.01.2026 made by petitioner holding the same to be in violation of principles of natural justice and against the provisions of sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in the interest of justice. (C) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby kindly directing the respondent or such other o6cer authorized in that behalf to decide the written representation dated 17.01.2026 made by the petitioner afresh after following due process of law by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to thereafter take a fresh decide within such time that may be deemed to be >t and expedient to this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice. (D) Pending admission, >nal hearing and disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 issued by respondent and further be pleased to direct the respondent to forthwith reconnect the electricity supply which has been disconnected in the premises being 1080 5 R.O. Plant situated at Near Falaha Masjid, Ankleshwar of the petitioner in the interest of justice. p. 3 (E) Ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(D) may kindly be granted. (F) Any other order/s that may be deemed >t and expedient may kindly be passed in the interest of justice by this Hon’ble Court. 4. The facts of the present petition are that the petitioner is running R.O. Plant and he has 2 R.O. Plants, out of which 1 R.O. Plant is non-working since it is purchased and installed. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had applied for electricity connection for commercial use and 3 phase connection was provided with 7 kilo watts with metre No. DGC 93564 for the R.O. Plant by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running 1 R.O. Plant from 2022-2023 and he had purchased another R.O. Plant from Hydropedia Private Limited which needed more electricity and therefore he sought 25 KW from 7 KW and load was increased by DHVCL. It is the case of the petitioner that he had also purchased De- Mineralised Plant, however, the same was never started and 2nd R.O. Plant was never made functional and at 7.55 a.m., the respondent carried out an inspection and checking of electricity use done by the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner has committed irregularity for which o?ence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been made out for theft. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent issued notice along with supplementary bill for the theft along with theft calculation sheet and the petitioner has no knowledge about the inspection at his premises which was closed on 22.12.2025. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had made representation before the respondent, for which the respondent gave reply and an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for theft of electricity. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 23.12.2025 and the p. 4 supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 for theft of electricity without there being any representation on behalf of petitioner an no opportunity of hearing was granted, the present petition is 7led. 5. Heard Mr.Vaibhav Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material placed on record. 6. Mr.Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the letter dated 23.12.2025 along with supplementary bill and reply dated 03.02.2026 given by respondent with regard to theft of electricity is against the law and evidence on record. He has submitted that the respondent has acted in mechanical and illegal manner by passing the provisions of Section 135(2) and (3) of the Act without application of mind. He has submitted that the respondent has committed grave error in misreading and misconstruing the provision of Section 135 of the Act and 7led the FIR against the petitioner for theft of electricity. He has submitted that in the letter written by the respondent, it has been stated that there was theft of electricity and therefore the case was registered against the petitioner, however, considering the fact that the respondent issued supplementary bill after reassessing the usage of energy under Section 126 of the Act and not under Section 135 of the Act and hence, this Court may consider the petition. 6.1 In support of his submission, Mr.Sheth, 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 and 24 by the Division Bench of p. 5 this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 616 of 2018 and has urged that the petition be admitted and interim relief be granted in favour of the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that when the supplementary bill issued under Section 135 of the Act, it is the case of the respondent that there was theft of energy and, therefore, the o?ence was registered against the petitioner and when the o?ence relating to Section 135 to Section 140 of the Act, the petitioner has to challenge before the Special Court by way of preferring the special civil suit. He has submitted that when the civil liability is arisen, the Special Court is empowered to take action into the matter and petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Laljibhai Nashit Vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited reported in 2020 (0) GUJHC 34870 : 2020 (0) JX(Guj) 622 and submitted that this Court in the said decision has observed that there being statutory remedy available under the Act, the resort to petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not be entertained, the Special Court has power to determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy. He has submitted that under such circumstances, let the petitioner may approach before the appropriate forum by preferring the special suit as provided under Section 154 of the Act. He has submitted that this Court, while deciding Special Civil Application No. 18787 of 2022, has dismissed the petition considering the statutory remedy available to the consumer under the Act. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel has submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to p. 6 be dismissed. 8. In view of the settled legal principles pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with similar set of facts and ultimately annunciated the principle that when there is implication of Section 135 to Section 140 of the Act, the Special Court can try constituted under Section 153 of the Act. 9. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a view to enable him to take appropriate recourse by preferring appropriate proceedings before the Special Court as provided under the Act. 10. In view of the above, permission as sought for is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to 7le appropriate proceedings before the Special Court constituted under the Act and raise all legal contentions which are raised in the petition permission under the law. The concerned Court shall decide the Special Suit in accordance with law and on merits. Rule is discharged. It is needless to say that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL