Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner describing himself as a national and citizen of India is before this Court seeking protection of his fundamental and legal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 2. In paragraph 3, he has stated that: “The petitioner submits that the petitioner is the valued customer of the respondent who is provided the electricity supply being Consumer No. 27207/01820/7. (emphasis supplied). 3. The respondent in this matter is Deputy Engineer (O&M), U.G.V.C.L. (GEB), Town Sub-Division, Dholka – 387 810. 4. More the Court comes across the matters related to theft of electricity, more the Court is convinced that it is high time when the Government should provide two departments in every organisation which supplies electricity; a department of ‘protection force’ to provide necessary protection to the employees of such company/organisation when they go to inspect the places of consumers of electricity because in every third matter it is reported that ‘employees of the electricity supply company are assaulted’. The second department which is required to be provided is, a well equipped intelligence department which should constantly go on tracing theft of electricity. 5. In the case on hand the petitioner not only ‘obstructed the employees of the electricity company’ but also assaulted them and for that an FIR being CR II-346 of 2008 was required to be registered at GEB Police Station, Sabarmati for an incident which took place at 4 P.M., on 23.4.2008 at village ‘Nano Rabari Vas’, Taluka Dholka. In that complaint, the name of accused is Mahmadashiq Abdulkadar Panara and the complainant is Ketankumar Himatlal Shah, Deputy Engineer, UGVCL Office, Dholka Town. 6. The accused had taken electricity supply in his residential house directly from the electric lines of UGVCL (L.T.) by connecting two wires not only that he was generous to oblige his two neighbours with free electricity, when the premises of the accused were required to be inspected, at that time the employees of the electricity company were assaulted they were subjected to stoning. In that assault one Mr. R.G. Patel, an employee of the electricity company, sustained injuries and he was required to be hospitalized. The accused could successfully prevent the personnel of electricity company from collecting any material, meter or service wire from the place of occurrence. 7. In that assault one Mr. R.G. Patel, an employee of the electricity company, sustained injuries and he was required to be hospitalized. The accused could successfully prevent the personnel of electricity company from collecting any material, meter or service wire from the place of occurrence. 7. This happened after the petitioner approached the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Dholka in the month of March 2008 by filing Civil Suit No. 120 of 2008 for various reliefs. The learned Civil Judge has passed an order below Ex.16, a copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure ‘E’ wherein the learned Judge has recorded a categorical finding in paragraph 5 that ‘the petitioner has tried to mislead the opponent institution as well as the Court’. Application Ex.16 was decided by order dated 21.4.2008 against which an appeal was preferred being Appeal No. 71 of 2008 which too came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 4.6.2008. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Consumer forum. This fact is not disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner (emphasis supplied). 8. The facts emerging in this matter are that earlier the electric connection of the uncle of the petitioner was subjected to checking on 5.11.2004. Pursuant to that checking the electricity supply was required to be disconnected. Checking sheet for that checking on 5.11.2004 is produced at page 71, laboratory report is produced at pages 72-73 and thereafter bill was submitted to the occupant being Gulamnabi Abdul Kadar with the bill for the theft of electricity which is at page 75 for Rs. 44,547.30 Ps. He was also served with a legal notice dated 28.10.2005 which is at page 76. 9. Thereafter the petitioner making misrepresentation before the company obtained another connection. When that connection was checked on 15.4.2008 the theft of electricity was noticed, that too by grossest means, that is, by directly connecting two wires to the electricity supply line, as if it was a handy tool to do charity to two neighbours were also supplied power by the petitioner when this was noticed, the petitioner was served with a bill of Rs. 1,36,220.60 paise. Initially the petitioner obtained an order of notice on 18.7.2008 returnable on 31.7.2008. Thereafter representing before the Court that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount outstanding obtained an order by misrepresenting that the petitioner is a labourer. 1,36,220.60 paise. Initially the petitioner obtained an order of notice on 18.7.2008 returnable on 31.7.2008. Thereafter representing before the Court that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount outstanding obtained an order by misrepresenting that the petitioner is a labourer. Relevant part of the order reads as under: “7. The petitioner who is a labourer, has shown readiness to deposit Rs. 20,000/- at a stroke, which would be roughly 20 months regular electricity bill and has also shown willingness to give undertaking to deposit the other amount as may be ordered by this Court at the later stage, can be said as reasonable at this stage for restoration of the electricity and the matter may be considered at the later date. 8. In view of the above, by way of temporary measure, it is directed that the respondent Electricity Company shall restore the electricity supply in connection No. 27207/01820/7 vide meter No. 2853370 within 24 hours on depositing the amount of Rs. 20,000/- by the petitioner with the Electricity Company. The petitioner shall also file undertaking before this Court to deposit further amount if it is so ordered by this Court on the next date or at the other date fixed. The undertaking shall be filed within a period of one week from today.” 10. The Court did have the idea of misrepresentation made by the petitioner therefore the Court observed in Para 9 as under: “9. It is also directed that the petitioner shall clarify the exact survey number/location of the residence by producing the authenticated record as to whether it is Survey No. 993 or 997 or 1024 or 1006. The respondent Electricity Company shall produce the copy of the application made by the earlier connection holder and the document produced therewith in respect of whom the outstanding amount of Rs. 45,489.57 Ps. is shown as outstanding.” (emphasis supplied). 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner deposited Rs. 20,000/- and the electricity supply was restored to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000 also as is recorded in order dated 21.7.2009. 12. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent company filed LPA and the opponent - present petitioner - agreed to pay the remaining amount of the outstanding dues of the earlier consumer and paid the same. 13. Thereafter the petitioner agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000 also as is recorded in order dated 21.7.2009. 12. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent company filed LPA and the opponent - present petitioner - agreed to pay the remaining amount of the outstanding dues of the earlier consumer and paid the same. 13. Today when the matter is heard at length the learned Advocate appearing for respondent company pointed out the aforesaid facts in detail. The Court is of the firm opinion that conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from any indulgence at the hands of this Court and hence the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 7,500/- deposit of which shall be condition precedent for filing any further proceeding in the matter. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated forthwith.