JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. One Mr.Rajan M.Shah, is before this Court being aggrieved by order passed by the Appellate Committee dated 23rd April, 2004; whereby, the petitioner is asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1,14,670/-. As it is the case of the respondent i.e. Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (MGVCL) (earlier it was Gujarat Electricity Board) that on 6.11.2003, the premises of the sister of the petitioner named Darshanaben M.Shah was carried out and in that, certain irregularities were noticed which are set out in document which is produced at Annexure-B. 2. The Court need not to go into that because the petitioner has given up his other contentions except the contention raised in Ground (C) and (D) of the petition. This was recorded by this Court while passing the order on 1st June, 2004, the order reads as under: “...On being confronted with the possibility of the petition arising number of disputed questions of fact, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he confines his petition only to two technical questions raised by him in grounds nos. (C) & (D) in the petition and that he gives up all the contentions regarding the finding of facts arrived at by the authorities.....” (Emphasis supplied) 3. It is in light of this order that the contention raised in Ground-C and D are relevant for our purpose. “(C) The petitioner states and submits that the appellate authority of the respondent-Board has committed a serious error while considering the ABCD formula and while fixing factor-D to be of 180 days. It is submitted that three months prior to the checking the meter of the single phase connection was checked and replaced by the respondent-Board and therefore the period should be 90 days at best. (D) The petitioner further respectfully submits that even assuming without admitting that the petitioner has committed theft of power supply by connecting load of one phase of the three phase meter with single phase meter of the sister of the petitioner, then also, the load of one phase out of three phases is diverted to the single phase meter. (D) The petitioner further respectfully submits that even assuming without admitting that the petitioner has committed theft of power supply by connecting load of one phase of the three phase meter with single phase meter of the sister of the petitioner, then also, the load of one phase out of three phases is diverted to the single phase meter. It is not clear either from the checking report or from the appellate committee's order as to which phase of three phases of the petitioner's power supply is connected with the single-phase meter and while applying the ABCD formula that much power is only required to be considered. However, in the present case the appellate committee has considered all three phases of the petitioner's power supply to have been diverted at a time and accordingly calculated the units alleged to have been pilferaged by the petitioner. It is also submitted that while calculating the lighting load the appellate committee has assumed the power load of 10 KW for 24 hours a day though it is the peak load and the power consumption at a given point of time hardly touches the peak load. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the appellate committee deserves to be set aside by the Hon'ble Court”. 4. In light of the aforesaid specific order, it was expected from the respondent i.e. MGVCL that they should have come forward with a specific case to the effect that, 'the meter of the sister of the petitioner was changed on a particular date and that irregularity alleged is of such a nature that even at the time of replacing the meter, it could not have been noticed by duly trained and skilled staff of the respondent'. Unless that is the case made out by the respondent, the respondent cannot be heard by saying that they are right in punishing the petitioner by charging him for 180 days and not for 90 days. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could establish on record that the sister of the petitioner was holding Consumer No.16335/00165/9 and the meter number of this consumer was mentioned 305389 as is reflected in the bill issued for the month of June-July, 2003. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could establish on record that the sister of the petitioner was holding Consumer No.16335/00165/9 and the meter number of this consumer was mentioned 305389 as is reflected in the bill issued for the month of June-July, 2003. Incidentally, in the next bill, i.e. issued for the month of August-September, 2003, the meter number is changed meaning thereby, the meter was changed but no such endorsement has found in the bill issued by the respondent to the sister of the petitioner. 6. Next comes the bill for the month of October-November, 2003, in that bill, printed number of the meter is the same as that of in the bill of August-September, 2003 but the handwritten meter number is written 971625. In the body part of the bill, it is mentioned that 'meter is changed' 'but details of old meter are not mentioned'. What does it mean, only respondent and its officers and employees know. It is true that respondent is a public sector undertaking and it functions through its employees but only by virtue of that, respondent cannot be given arbitrary powers of punishing the citizens of the country at the sweat will and the whims of the officers. It is very easy to say that, if at all, the employee of the respondent (MGVCL) has colluded with the consumer, the company should not be made to suffer by the Court more particularly, by interpreting any provision in favour of the citizen. In fact, there has to be a regular checking on the functioning of the staff which is directly dealing with the citizens at large at the ground level. In the present case, though in the bill of August-September, 2003, the meter number is changed from the earlier bill issued for the June-July, 2003, no notice is taken by the higher officers of respondent MGVCL. 7. In the subsequent bill issued for October-November, 2003, yet again, there is a change in the meter number and it is mentioned that 'meter is changed' but 'no details of the old meter is mentioned'. Besides, no reason for change of old meter is mentioned, no reference to any complaint by the citizen is made. 7. In the subsequent bill issued for October-November, 2003, yet again, there is a change in the meter number and it is mentioned that 'meter is changed' but 'no details of the old meter is mentioned'. Besides, no reason for change of old meter is mentioned, no reference to any complaint by the citizen is made. What is contended on behalf of the MGVCL is that the irregularity alleged against the petitioner is such that the skilled and trained staff of MGVCL could not have noticed at the time of changing the meter. On perusal of papers the 'Rojkam' prepared on the day of the inspection which is produced at Annexure-'B' wherein, it is stated that, “Neutral wire is broken (disconnected)”. This is something which cannot go unnoticed at the time of change of meter. Besides, this Court is of the opinion that 'change of meter' amounts to 'an inspection of the premises'. That being so, once the premises were inspected on the day when the meter was changed, the respondent cannot be allowed to charge the consumer at the rate of 180 days, it has to be charged only at the rate of 90 days to which the petitioner has already agreed. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to a decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6164 of 2004 (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) dated 31.1.2013. Learned advocate also invited the attention of the Court to the fact that this decision is a subject matter of an appeal which is admitted and the judgment and order is stayed. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Appellate Committee did not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner. This submission does not remain significant in light of the fact that the petitioner has agreed to raise the contentions set out in Ground C and D only. Therefore, this Court does not deem it necessary to deal with this contention. 10. This Court is not required to go deep into the details of the present case as it is decided on the facts of the case. Therefore, this Court does not deem it necessary to deal with this contention. 10. This Court is not required to go deep into the details of the present case as it is decided on the facts of the case. The fact that the respondent has not produced on record any material to dislodge an inference which is required to be drawn and is drawn in the facts of the present case i.e. 'at the time of changing of meter, the skilled/trained staff of the MGVCL must have noticed, if any irregularity existed', in absence of any such material, this Court has reason to believe and it accordingly believes that irregularity which is not contested by the petitioner must have come into existence only after the meter was changed. Therefore, it is a fit case wherein the order of the appellate committee dated 23rd April, 2004 deserves to be varied to the extent that the D-factor which is taken at the rate of 180 days be changed to 90 days. 11. The lighting load and for heating appliance load, Dfactor is taken at the rate of 184 days and for cooling appliance load, it is taken at the rate of 179 days. The respondent is directed to issue fresh supplementary bill by taking D-factor to be 90 days only. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. Directions given.