JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, as under: "20(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the revised supplementary bill dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure-G to this petition) in respect of Consumer Service No. 20918/00190/0 of the petitioner, as well as the order dated 4.6.2005 (Annexure-F to the petition) passed by the Appellate Committee in Appeal No. B-80/2005, which is communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 21.6.2005; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay execution and implementation of the revised supplementary bill dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure-G to the petition) and thereby restrain the officers of the respondent-Board from disconnecting electric supply of the petitioner's agricultural electric connection bearing Consumer Service No. 20918/00190/0; (C) To award the costs of this petition; (D) To pass such other and further orders as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice." 2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondent company has appeared through Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate and has filed Affidavit-in-reply by Deputy Engineer of the respondent company. 3. Brief facts, arise from the record, are as under:- The respondent company is in the business of distribution of electricity supply to its consumers for different purposes. The petitioner was granted electricity supply for carrying out agricultural operations in the year 1990. The petitioner used to pay the charges for electricity consumed by him for agricultural purposes for number of years. The petitioner was granted 62 HP load and accordingly entered into a contract with the respondent company. Installation of the petitioner was checked by the Junior Engineer, Mehsana Rural Sub Division on 21/09/2004. It was found that the petitioner has made permanent arrangement to supply water, fetched from his bore well of agricultural connection to the tank of nearby under construction housing society, located approximately 150 meters away, through underground pipelines. It was found that under construction society namely Sakar Residency was collecting water, fetched from bore well of the agricultural connection of the petitioner by making underground tank of 22' x 13' x 9' size. Underground pipeline was also found connected between the field of the petitioner and the said society. It was found that under construction society namely Sakar Residency was collecting water, fetched from bore well of the agricultural connection of the petitioner by making underground tank of 22' x 13' x 9' size. Underground pipeline was also found connected between the field of the petitioner and the said society. Since the petitioner was granted electric connection for agricultural usage and was supplying water from his bore well by using his electric supply to nearby under construction housing society, which was not permissible, the case was treated as 'Malpractice' adopted by the consumer under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy. A supplementary bill to the tune of Rs.5,52,286.88 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal u/s. 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and challenged the supplementary bill. The Appellate authority by its judgment dated 04/06/2005 accepted the appeal in part and directed the company to issue a fresh bill calculating the electric consumption for 8 hours a day for 183 days i.e. approximately for six months. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that Electricity Company as well as the appellate authority have committed an error in treating the case of the petitioner as if he has adopted Malpractice in consuming the electricity supply, which is provided by the electricity company. The petitioner has provided only water to his neighbor for a short period. However, he has been issued supplementary bill for approximately six months, by applying ABCD formula, under the Indian Electricity Act. He would submit that the case on hand, does not fall under condition Nos. 33(A)(a) or 33(A)(b) of Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy and, therefore, supplementary bill as well as impugned order passed by the authority are required to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that the petitioner has not adopted any of the Malpractice, as referred in Condition Nos. 33(A) (a) or 33(A)(b) of Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy (hereinafter referred as "the Conditions"). He would submit that the respondent company has relied upon Condition No. 33(A) (e) of the Conditions. However, the same would not be covered under the said Act since the petitioner has not supplied "Energy" to any other person, without permission of the board. He would submit that the respondent company has relied upon Condition No. 33(A) (e) of the Conditions. However, the same would not be covered under the said Act since the petitioner has not supplied "Energy" to any other person, without permission of the board. He would submit that the petitioner was never restrained to supply water to his neighbor, as per the conditions imposed at the time of installation of electric connection. He would submit that internal Circular dated 07/06/1999 issued by the respondent company, cannot be made applicable since the petitioner would never informed that the same would be applicable to all consumers. He would further submit that N.A. Permission/construction permission has been granted to the adjoining society only in the month of August, 2004, however, checking was made in the month of September, 2004 and, therefore, he could not have been asked to pay for a period of six months. He would further submit that both the authorities below have committed an error in calculating the days as well as ABCD formula, as provided under the Act, are concerned, if the case put forward by the respondent company is accepted, the petitioner has provided water to the neighbor society only for 22 days and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent has opposed this petition and has submitted that the petitioner, who is an agriculturist, had applied for electricity connection in the year 1990 for agricultural operations. By taking me through the application of the year 1990, he would submit that electrical connection was supplied for agricultural purposes only. He would submit that the rate for consumption of agricultural usage is lowest among other connection. Rates for using the electric supply to a consumer, depend upon its usage. He would submit that when the inspection was made, it was found that from the tank of the petitioner, an underground pipeline of 170 meter was laid, so that the petitioner can provide water to his neighbor, who is carrying out commercial activities i.e. construction of the society. He would submit that laying pipeline of 170 meters, makes it clear the intention of the petitioner to supply water to his neighbor by using electric supply, which would be calculated at the rate applicable for the agricultural purposes. He would submit that laying pipeline of 170 meters, makes it clear the intention of the petitioner to supply water to his neighbor by using electric supply, which would be calculated at the rate applicable for the agricultural purposes. He would submit that when the petitioner was given electricity connection in the year 1990-91, he has given an Undertaking that whatever conditions though not referred in the Act or in the Undertaking and subsequently issued by the respondent company, would be followed by the petitioner. He would submit that on 07/06/1999, board had made it clear that if a consumer having a agricultural connection, supply energy to any other person, the same shall be treated as "Malpractice" and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered there under. He would submit that the petitioner was fully aware that he has been granted electricity supply only for agricultural operations and not to provide water to his neighbor for constructing housing society, which would fall under commercial activities. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent company would submit that the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that NA permission was granted to the adjoining land only 22 days prior to checking and, therefore, supplementary bill may be issued only for that period, cannot be accepted since presumption is that the Board cannot decide as to Whether construction was carried out prior to NA permission or not. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the checking report; the impugned order passed by the appellate authority; an application submitted by the petitioner in the year 1990; an Undertaking given by the petitioner; Circular dated 07/06/1999 as well as condition Nos. 33(A) (a), 33(A) (b) and 33(A)(e) of the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy. 7. It is not in a dispute that the petitioner was granted electricity supply to carry out agricultural operations in the year 1990. When the installation of the electric connection was checked on 21/09/2004, it was found that the tank constructed in the field of the petitioner was joined by an underground water pipelines having approximately 170 meters, with a huge tank of 22' x 13' x 9' size, belongs to nearby under construction society. When the installation of the electric connection was checked on 21/09/2004, it was found that the tank constructed in the field of the petitioner was joined by an underground water pipelines having approximately 170 meters, with a huge tank of 22' x 13' x 9' size, belongs to nearby under construction society. The petitioner was bound to use the electric supply for agricultural operations only and could not have indirectly consumed for other purposes like providing water fetched from his bore well to under construction society, which was carrying on commercial activities. The application submitted by the petitioner in the year 1990 makes it clear that the petitioner was interested for getting a new electric connection for agricultural operations only. Condition No. 4 of his Undertaking dated 20/05/1991 makes it clear that the petitioner would abide by all the conditions as to whether they are a part or not a part of the Act and shall bound by subsequent issuance of Circulars by the respondent company. In view of the above background, if circular dated 07/06/1999 is perused, condition No. 4 makes it clear that if a electric connection is given for agricultural purposes, the consumer cannot use for the purposes, other than the purposes granted to him. 8. So far as applicability of condition No. 33(A) (e) of Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy is concerned, the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "33A Malpractice and Theft of Energy (a) Malpractice Malpractice shall mean contravention by the consumer of any of the provision of the I.E. Act, 1910 Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 or Indian electricity Rules, 1956 or of any other law governing the supply and use of Electricity and the rules framed there under as also the contravention of any of the provision of the Board's "Condition and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy" or any of the terms and conditions of the contract governing the supply of electricity by the Board to the consumer and shall in particular include the following case: (a) The supply of electricity by a consumer to any other person whose supply has been disconnected by the Board for any reason. (b) Exceeding the contracted load by a consumer without the specific permission of the Board. (b) Exceeding the contracted load by a consumer without the specific permission of the Board. (c) Unauthorized addition, alteration and\or extension to the consumer's electrical installation without the permission of the Board (d) Using supply by a consumer from the service which has been disconnected by the Board for any reason. (e) Supply of energy to any other person without the permission of the Board." If clause No. 33(A) (e) is perused, the word "supply of energy" is required to be interpreted. In my opinion, the clause 33(A)(e) would not cover the actual supply of energy but also cover usage of energy, which was grated to the consumer. Thereafter, taking disadvantage of the same, the petitioner has provided facility to the person, who is not a consumer of the respondent company, that too without prior permission of the board. 9. Here in the present case, the petitioner has used the electricity supply for fetching water, which was meant for his own field and not for construction of neighboring society, which is for commercial purpose. Size of the tank and pipelines laid down by the petitioner makes it clear the intention of the petitioner, i.e. to earn some revenue from a person who was not a consumer of Electricity Company. 10. So far as submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that NA permission to the adjoining land was granted only 22 days before checking and supplementary bill may be issued accordingly, cannot be accepted. It is difficult to say that as to whether adjoining plot holder was carrying on construction of the society prior to grant of permission or not. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and the petition is merit less. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.