ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the Appellate Committee of the erstwhile respondent Company known as Gujarat Electricity Board. 2. The facts arising in this petition are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a consumer of the respondent Company in the industrial category bearing consumer No.30101/58240/4. It appears from the record that the petitioner falls within the industrial category. The record of the petition further indicates that the contracted load of the petitioner is 15.000 HP/KW. 2.2 The facts further reveal that on 6.2.2003, the officer of the respondent Company inspected the premises of the petitioner and checked the electrical installation. On such a checking having been undertaken, it was found that the meter was necessary to be removed and accordingly, the meter was removed from the installation and sent for inspection to the laboratory. The record further reveals that the meter was so inspected in the laboratory and it was found that 4 body seals were tampered with and accordingly, the laboratory made its report dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure-A). Considering the same, the respondent Company issued supplementary bill of Rs.2,00,206.80. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said supplementary bill, paid 20% of the impugned bill amount and filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee, which came to be registered as Appeal No.15/24. The Appellate Committee, after giving an opportunity of being heard and on perusal of the record, partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to revise supplementary bill by taking D=155 instead of 180. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 9.3.2004, the petitioner-consumer has preferred this petition. It may be noted that as per the impugned order dated 9.3.2004, the revised bill was raised by the respondent Company for a sum of Rs.1,71,362.80. 3. Heard Ms. Sudha Gangwar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.D. Oza, learned advocate for the respondents. 4. Ms. Sudha Gangwar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Committee has not considered all relevant submissions and the Appellate Committee has also not considered the material and relevant aspects of the matter and has straightaway passed the impugned order. It is contended that the report submitted by the officer of the respondent Company has been accepted as a gospel truth. It is contended that the report submitted by the officer of the respondent Company has been accepted as a gospel truth. It is further contended that even the time for which the industry of the petitioner was run was very much on record of the appellate authority; however, straightaway the formula is applied for and the impugned order is passed. It is also contended that even the nature of industry of the petitioner is not taken care of by the authority and as the petitioner being the plastic industry cannot run for 24 hours. Such a material aspect is totally ignored by the Appellate Committee. It is therefore contended that the impugned order is bad and illegal and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. A.D. Oza, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that it is clearly evident from the report of the laboratory that the meter was tampered and four vital components of the meter were adjusted by the petitioner in such manner so as to commit theft of the energy. Mr. Oza relying upon the laboratory report submitted that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Committee are legal and proper and passed on true and correct interpretation of the evidence on record. It is therefore submitted that this is not a fit case, wherein this Court may be pleased to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore submitted that the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the laboratory report at Annexure-A, the contents of which are not controverted by the petitioner, it clearly mentions that the meter was tampered with. Thus, the finding of fact based upon such a report made by the appellate authority is absolute legal and proper. The impugned order clearly provides that the appellate authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a plastic industry and considering the evidence on record, the Appellate Committee has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of theft of energy. The impugned order clearly provides that the appellate authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a plastic industry and considering the evidence on record, the Appellate Committee has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of theft of energy. Once it is proved that the petitioner has committed theft of energy, Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board provide that while making assessment and while preparing the supplementary bill, four factors are to be considered, which are as under :- “A is total connected load found at time of detecting the theft of energy. B is diversity factor. C is an average load factor. D is the number of hours in a month.” 8. Considering the aforesaid formula, the Appellate Committee has, on the contrary, appreciated the contentions raised by the petitioner as regards the number of hours for which the industry is run by the petitioner in a month and has given benefit of Factor (D), as observed above, whereby the said Factor is reduced to 155 instead of 180. 9. On going through the impugned order, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Committee is competent enough to examine the technical aspects and considering all such vital facts, has rightly partly allowed the appeal by giving benefit of Factor (D) as indicated hereinabove. The petitioner has not been able to establish before this Court that no tampering of the meter was found. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the laboratory report and therefore, as theft is proved, no further benefit can be accorded to the consumer like the petitioner. Theft of electrical energy has to be viewed very seriously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have been able to establish the fact that the petitioner is guilty of theft of energy. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no error in the findings arrived at by the Appellate Committee. In light of the aforesaid, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. It may be noted that while admitting the matter vide order dated 5.11.2004, this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) had granted ad-interim relief on certain conditions. In light of the aforesaid, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. It may be noted that while admitting the matter vide order dated 5.11.2004, this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) had granted ad-interim relief on certain conditions. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, is not in a position to make any definite statement whether the conditions have been adhered to as the petition is pending since long. The petitioner is directed to pay remaining supplementary bill within a period of four weeks from today, if not paid as per the aforesaid order dated 5.11.2004. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.