JUDGMENT This LPA under Clause 10 of Letters Patent has been preferred by an unsuccessful petitioner of W.P. No. 996/2001 decided on 16.5.2001. The appellant herein by filing a writ petition was challenging supplementary bill issued for Rs. 8,65,940/- which was raised against the appellant for consumption of electricity in its factory. On 5.5.2001 an inspection of meters Installed In appellant s factory was conducted. As per Panchnama prepared on the said date, copy of which has been filed by the appellant (As Annexure P-2 in writ petition) shows that some of the seals put in the meters were found to be tampered. It has also been recorded that though no current was flowing in the meter but the appellant's factory was still getting current. The panchnama prepared by MPEB reflects that tampering was done either in the meter or in the seals put by the Board. Learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the petition of the appellant on the ground that in a case of theft of electricity, writ Court cannot exercise it jurisdiction conferred under articles 226/227 of Constitution of India. It has been further held by learned Single Judge that since it was a case of theft, provisions as contained in section 26(6) of Electricity Act, whereby dispute of this nature can be raised before the Chief Electrical Inspector, cannot be made as it was a case of theft. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and having gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge and documents filed by the appellant itself. We find that reasoning arrived at by learned Single Judge are correct and are based on the documents filed by the appellant itself. No case for interference is made out, therefore this appeal stands dismissed but no order as to costs.