JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. A common issue involved in these writ petitions is that whether the appellate authority while exercising powers u/s. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is empowered to grant set off, if it is found that there is unauthorized use of electricity as defined u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act. 2. Though the respondent-consumer is different in each of the petitions, these matters are heard together with the consent of learned advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned AGP appearing for respondent No. 2 since in both the matters, same issue is involved for consideration. In each petitions, respondent - consumers were using two types of electricity supply namely industrial purpose and lighting purpose. Tariff for industrial consumption of electricity is lesser than the tariff for lighting purpose. Two separate meters were installed at the premises of each of the respondent. 3. When the Installation Checking Squad visited the place and inspected the meter, it was found that the consumers were using the electricity through the electrical supply attached to the meter recording industrial use instead of supply meant for lighting purpose. Therefore, a bill was issued to the consumers on the line as the consumers have unauthorizedly used the electric supply and amount was calculated at the rate provided for lighting consumption. The said decision was challenged by the consumers before the appellate authority. The appellate authority did not find, contrary to the fact that the consumers were using electricity supply through the industrial meter, which was meant for using the same only for industrial purpose and not for lighting, however, held that consumers would be liable to pay the difference between rate of tariff for industrial purpose and rate of tariff for lighting purpose. Hence, these petitions. 4. Though served, respondent No. 1 in both the petitions have chosen not to engage a lawyer to defend the case nor appeared personally before this Court. 5. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in both the petition would submit that the appellate authority has committed grave error in directing the petitioner company to prepare revised bill, though the consumers were using electricity in unauthorized manner. She would submit that the consumers were provided two different connections for two different purposes i.e. industrial and lighting. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in both the petition would submit that the appellate authority has committed grave error in directing the petitioner company to prepare revised bill, though the consumers were using electricity in unauthorized manner. She would submit that the consumers were provided two different connections for two different purposes i.e. industrial and lighting. She would submit that consumers were using the electrical supply for lighting through the industrial line, which would ultimately result into payment of consumed electricity at the lower rate and, therefore, purposes for which electricity supply was given was frustrated. By relying upon the section126(5) and (6) of the Act, she would submit that when it is found that the consumers have unauthorizedly used the electricity supply, they have to pay the amount as provided under the Act as well as Regulations framed under the law. 6. She would further submit that there is no provision of giving set off under the Rules and Regulations and, therefore, Division Bench of this Court has held that if it is found that a consumers have unauthorizedly used electricity supply, they are bound to pay the amount as per the Regulations particularly Regulation No. 7.2.6. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court on 16/08/2011 in the case of Rajendra R.Sheth, Deputy Engineer (O.&M.) v. M/s. Matariya Textiles & Anr. reported in 2011(3) GLR 2447 . 7. By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, she would submit that the petitions may be allowed and each of the orders passed by appellate authority may be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the decision of the learned Appellate authority. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in each of the petitions. There is no dispute that the consumers were having two types of electric connections namely industrial and lighting. It is also not in dispute that the rate of industrial unit of electrical consumption are lesser than the rate of lighting. The consumers in addition to industrial purpose were using electrical supply for lighting purpose also. However, the supply was being recorded in the meter, which was installed for recording of industrial use. 10. It is also not in dispute that the rate of industrial unit of electrical consumption are lesser than the rate of lighting. The consumers in addition to industrial purpose were using electrical supply for lighting purpose also. However, the supply was being recorded in the meter, which was installed for recording of industrial use. 10. In view of the above aspect, the question to be dealt with is, whether the appellate authority has erred in directing the petitioner company to calculate the difference of amount or not. Section 126 of the Act, reads as under: "126. Assessment. (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,-- (a) Assessing officer means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) Unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of electricity- (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized." 11. If the explanation (iv) of sub-section (6) of section 126 of the Act is perused, it is established that in both the cases, consumers were using electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized. That means though they were permitted to use electricity supply through lighting purpose, they were using the electricity through the line for which meter was recording as if the same was being recorded for industrial usage. Therefore, it is an unauthorized use of electricity. Since, it is unauthorized use of electricity, the consumers are bound to pay as per the rate prescribed under the Code as well as under the Act. 12. In the case of Rajendra R.Sheth (supra), the same issue was considered by learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal and held that there is no provision of set off when there is unauthorized use of electrical supply and the quashed the order and directed the appellate authority to pay revised bill calculating the difference between the rate of two different usages. Para-10 of the said judgment reads as under: "10. In cases of unauthorized use of electricity as explained under Section 126of the Act, 2003, no benefit of 'set off' can be given. The Electricity Supply Code framed by Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of powers conferred under Section 50 of the Act, 2003 provides vide Clause 7.2.6 that the Units are required to be calculated at 1.5 times. Further, the tariff for lighting connection is Rs. 4.70 ps. per Unit, whereas, the tariff for industrial connection is Rs. The Electricity Supply Code framed by Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of powers conferred under Section 50 of the Act, 2003 provides vide Clause 7.2.6 that the Units are required to be calculated at 1.5 times. Further, the tariff for lighting connection is Rs. 4.70 ps. per Unit, whereas, the tariff for industrial connection is Rs. 3.75 ps. per Unit. We do not find anything in the Electricity Supply Code which provides to calculate the difference between two tariffs when it comes to issue a supplementary bill for unauthorized use of electricity. We cannot ignore the fact that multiplier of 1.5 times is penal in nature to cover cases falling within the purview of Section 126 of the Act, 2003." 13. In my opinion, the petitions are squarely covered by the above referred decision. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the petitions and the ratio laid down by Division Bench, both these petitions require consideration. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, both these petitions are allowed. The order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Electrical Inspector & Appellate Authority, Surat in Appeal No. 3 of 2009-10 and in Appeal No. 2 of 2009-10 are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.