ORAL JUDGMENT KS JHAVERI, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant original petitioner has challenged the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. 2. Learned advocate Ms. K.L.Kalwani for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is dealing in retail sale of Electric Home Appliances and is having its showroom at the address. She submitted that the load of electric consumption of the entire premises is distributed on both the electric consumptions. The inspection was carried out by the Officer of the respondent on 19/8/2005 at the business premises of the appellant. The investigation report/checking sheet No. 1224 was prepared in respect of the Power connection bearing No. 31804/03522. After the meter was sent for testing in the Laboratory, the respondent issued the provisional bill for Rs. 75,297.92/on 3/8/2005 to the appellant under section 126 of the Electricity Act alleging unauthorized consumption of the electricity. 3. She submitted that the despite all the above objections and submissions, the respondent, without considering any of the objections and submissions, issued final assessment order for the supplementary bill under section 126 of the Act for the entire amount of Rs. 1,38,857.92/. She submitted that the authority has wrongly considered the entire electric load of the premises on single power consumption/meter i.e. Consumer No. 31804/03522. The authority has not considered the consumption by other meters and that the power load was in fact distributed on both the power connections. 4. She submitted that the authority has wrongly included all the Air Conditioning machines and other electric appliances displayed in the Showroom for sale purpose as products consuming electricity and therefore, there is an error in calculating the load factor considering the total number of electric appliances can be in the showroom for sale. 5. She has relied upon one circular dated 23/6/2008 of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd and contended that in absence of proof of tampering of meter or use of any artificial means, such case should not be booked either for unauthorized use or electricity under section 126 or for theft of electricity under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 6. She submitted that even after the change of meter there was no increase in the consumption of the electricity. 6. She submitted that even after the change of meter there was no increase in the consumption of the electricity. Hence, the learned Single Judge has committed error in not considering the various grounds as mentioned in the petition in passing the order. Therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Maya Desai for learned advocate Mr. M.D. Pandya for respondent no. 2 contended that arguments in respect of two meters is misconceived. She contended that looking to the checking report and tampering with the wires, the Appellate Authority has taken linen view but keeping in mind, smallness of amount, respondent has not preferred appeal against the appellate authority. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 8. Learned AGP Mr. Bharat Vyas for respondent no. 1 has supported the contention of learned advocate Ms. Desai and submitted that learned Single Judge has not committed any error which would require interference by this Court. 9. Except that no other submission has been made by learned counsels for the respective parties. 10. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and in great detail. We have also perused the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge as well as the appellate authority. 11. The learned Single Judge has recorded the findings in para 4 & 5, which are reads as under: “4.The learned advocate for the respondent Company invited attention of the Court to page No.21, which is the opening part of the 'rozkam' of the laboratory testing of the meter. It is specifically recorded in this part that, the meter is received in a sealed condition and the brown tape which was applied all around the meter which was packed was in a paper, was found to be intact and on the knot of the thread, a paper slip was applied on which, name of the customer, connection number and details of the meter were mentioned. Not only that, that slip contains the signature of a representative of the petitioner – consumer. It is also recorded that at the time of opening of the packing of the meter, one Shri Anand Basharam Gogia, a representative of the customer – petitioner was present and in his presence, the paper seal was opened and meter was taken out for testing. It is also recorded that at the time of opening of the packing of the meter, one Shri Anand Basharam Gogia, a representative of the customer – petitioner was present and in his presence, the paper seal was opened and meter was taken out for testing. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that none of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner warrants any consideration at the hands of this Court because firstly, the entire dispute falls within the arena of questions of disputed facts. The learned advocate for respondent submitted that he feels it to be his duty to satisfy the conscience of the Court, on the aspect that the Company has not acted in a high-handed manner and has tried to do justice to the petitioner – customer. He submitted that it is a matter, of which judicial notice can be taken that, even when a person is in the same line, as an employee of the respondent Company, he is not expected to notice all 'malpractices' on a bare inspection of the meter which was carried out at site on 19.05.2005. It is a job assigned to the experts and therefore, the meter was taken for laboratory testing. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that if only visual inspection at the site was sufficient then there was no need to send the meter for laboratory testing. He submitted that the Court will appreciate the anxiety on the part of respondent Company that it never wanted to record any hasty findings about any malpractice against the petitioner – consumer and that is why, whatever was visible, was recorded in the report dated 19.05.2005 and then the meter was taken up for laboratory testing, that too after packing the meter in presence of a representative of the customer – petitioner. After properly sealing the same, a slip of paper was affixed on which all details were mentioned and signature of representative of the customer-petitioner was obtained. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that the learned advocate for the petitioner has read the details of the meter i.e. Clause No.3, items No.1 to 11 but then clause No.4 pertains to 'the details of the meter body seals'. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that the learned advocate for the petitioner has read the details of the meter i.e. Clause No.3, items No.1 to 11 but then clause No.4 pertains to 'the details of the meter body seals'. He submitted that in that, item No.1 is 'total necessary seals', figure mentioned is 4 and item No.2 is, 'actual total seals present', the figure mentioned is 3. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that in item No.3, it is mentioned that, 'one of the seals appears to have been melted'. This shows th at even on 19.05.2005, one of the seals was not intact. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that in the report dated 19.05.2005, it is specifically mentioned in sub-column No.2 of column No.1, which records general details viz. Connection No.3184/013522/0. He submitted that alongwith that, there is a column No.7 wherein the details of the load connected to the questioned electricity connection are mentioned. The same are A/C+2 x 1500 =3000 illegible (enlr) 2 x 120 = 240, A/C 1 x 2000 =2000, T/L – 18 x 55=990, 18WT/L–864 x 18 = 1152, illegible (FluxP) 1 x 500=500, 25W T/L – 25 x 12 = 300, total 8182 Watt. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that it is not in dispute that contract load was 6 KV on this connection, where as it is clear from the report dated 19.05.2005 that the connected load was found to be 8 KV. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that the appellate authority while taking into consideration the matter, had considered the representation (presentation of the case) made by the plaintiff and the respondent, checking sheet, lab 'rozkam', figures of electricity consumption. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that the appellate authority has not set out those figures in the order but he is having those figures and a copy of those figures with regard to electricity consumption, were made available to the Court for perusal. These figures show that in the year 2005, the electricity consumption was 6009 units, in the year 2006, it reduced to only 3620 units and in the year 2007, it was reduced to only 1952 units and in the year 2008, it was 1227 units. These figures show that in the year 2005, the electricity consumption was 6009 units, in the year 2006, it reduced to only 3620 units and in the year 2007, it was reduced to only 1952 units and in the year 2008, it was 1227 units. The learned advocate for the respondent Company submitted that there is something like law of probability and a law of drawing of inference from the material available on record. He submitted that the fact that, in laboratory testing, seal wires of all the seals were found to have been cut, the seal wires were so placed that they can easily be removed from the sealing screws and from the meter body, must lead to one and only one, inevitable inference that it was nobody else than the petitioner who was interested in seeing that he draws an undue benefit by not paying for the actual electricity consumption.” 12. On perusing the record, it transpires that one Mr. Mahendra Vadodariya is the consumer of the Respondent Electricity Company as is evident from Annexure E – Meter Checking Report and other documents. While the writ petition as well as the present appeal is preferred by the appellant in his capacity as the Director of Sneh Electronics. In our opinion, therefore, the writ petition as well as the present appeal at the instance of the Company, who is not the consumer of the respondent Electricity Company, are not competent. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and no interference would require by this Court. 13. Therefore, the appeal devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. 14. Since the main appeal has been dismissed today, no order on civil application. The same is also disposed of.