JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, as under: "16(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 4,40,297.38 (at Annexure-A hereto) as well as order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the Appellate Committee (at Annexure-B hereto); (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1-Company to permit the petitioner-Firm to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (under section 111 of the Electricity Act) or Appellate Authority (under Section 127 of the Electricity Act) without taking into account the aspect of delay in preferring the same; (C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent company not to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner-Firm; (D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case; 2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through their respective lawyers and have opposed to grant any relief, as prayed for, by the petitioners. Affidavit-in-reply, Affidavit-in-Rejoinder and further Affidavits have been filed by the respective parties. 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 had applied for electricity connection for 120 HP, which was granted by the respondent company. Junior Engineer of respondent No. 1 company had visited the premises of the petitioner-Firm on 17/11/2004 and all the machineries including meter were checked in presence of partner of petitioner No. 1. It was found that the petitioner-industry was using excessive load of 66.77 HP and accordingly Rojkam was prepared in presence of petitioner No. 2 and the same was signed by him, without any protest. It was found that the petitioner-industry was using excessive load of 66.77 HP and accordingly Rojkam was prepared in presence of petitioner No. 2 and the same was signed by him, without any protest. Since it was found that the petitioners have used the load exceeding the contracted one, the case was treated as 'Malpractice' under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy and, accordingly, supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 4,40,297.38 ps. was issued to the petitioners. The said Supplementary bill was challenged by the petitioners by way of filing an appeal being Appeal No. B-106/2005 before the Appellate Committee. Appellate Committee by its order dated 20/07/2005 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition. 4. Ms. Nirali Oza, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, would submit that electricity company as well as the Appellate Committee have committed an error in treating the case of the petitioner as if they have adopted "Malpractice" under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy. 4.1 She would submit that the authority has not considered a specific avernment raised by the petitioner that when checking was done, the premises was closed and was not in working condition. She would submit that when Rojkam was prepared on 17/11/2004, though petitioner No. 2 was present, his electrician was not present and, therefore, he could not raise any objection with regard to meter, load of electricity supply, etc. and, hence, the Appellate Committee ought to have considered the case of the petitioners. 4.2 She would submit that the Officers, who had prepared the Rojkam, have note down excess load of 66.77 HP, without any material. She would submit that the incident is of 17/11/2004 and, therefore, Electrical Inspector is a competent authority to decide the appeal as per Electricity Act, 2003, hence, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Electrical Inspector for afresh hearing. 4.3 She would submit that the case on hand, does not fall under condition Nos. 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 appellate authority are required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent company has opposed this petition. 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 appellate authority are required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent company has opposed this petition. It is an undisputed fact that the contractual load is 120 HP, however, when the unit was checked by the Vigilance Squad of the respondent company on 17/11/2004, it was found that the unit was having extra load of 66.77 HP. It is not true that when the unit was checked, it was closed since Vigilance Squad have examined all the machineries in detail and it is reported in the Rojkam that how much HP have been used by each of the machineries including Loom machines, blower, water meter, compressor machine, etc. 5.1 She would further submit that this exercise is undertaken in presence of petitioner No. 2, who is partner of petitioner No. 1 and the same was signed by him, without any protest. The contention raised by the petitioner with regard to non-availability of electrician, was not raised by the petitioner before any of the authorities and the same is without any basis. 5.2 She would submit that if the consumer used the excessive load than the contracted one, the case is treated as "Malpractice" under condition Nos. 33(A)(b) of Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy. She would submit that the petitioners themselves have filed the appeal before the Appellate Committee and have not raised the contention that the appeal is lies before Electrical Inspector. Such contention has not been raised before any of the authorities below and, hence, this contention is without any basis. 5.3 She has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Torrent Power AEC Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (2) GLH 375 , wherein it has been held by Division Bench of this Court in especially in Paragraph No. 22(I) that where theft of electricity was detected prior to 10th December, 2004, assessment of charges by the licensee was governed by the terms of "Conditions of supply and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy" framed by the Gujarat Electricity Board or the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. as the case may be. Ltd. as the case may be. Appeal against the order of assessment in such cases lies before the Appellate Committee constituted under the aforesaid Conditions of Supply. The jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain suits against the orders of the Appellate Committee is not barred. In view of the observations made by Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the appeal lies before the Appellate Committee and the petitioners have already preferred the appeal before the Appellate Committee, which was already dismissed by the Appellate Committee. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition and the same may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the checking report; the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee as well as condition No. 33(A)(b) of the aforesaid Conditions. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1, which is partnership firm, had entered into a contract with respondent company for 120 HP load and the respondent company was bound to supply the electricity within the said limit. When the checking squad of the respondent company had visited the unit, petitioner No. 2, who is a partner, was present and in his presence all the machineries were tested by the checking squad and the same was reflected in the Rojkam also. It appears that all the machineries including Loom machines, blower, water meter, compressor machine, etc., were tested in presence of petitioner No. 2 and it was found that the petitioner was using load of 186.77 HP, which is beyond the contractual one. 8. It appears that all the machineries including Loom machines, blower, water meter, compressor machine, etc., were tested in presence of petitioner No. 2 and it was found that the petitioner was using load of 186.77 HP, which is beyond the contractual one. 8. So far as applicability of condition No. 33(A)(b) of Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges For Supply of Electrical Energy is concerned, the same is reproduced hereinbelow 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 thereunder 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. (c) Unauthorised 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 Condition No. 33(A)(b) is perused, in my opinion, if the consumer used the exceeding the contracted load without permission of the board, the case shall be treated as "Malpractice". Here in the present case, the petitioner has used the electricity supply exceeding the contracted load. 9. So far as submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that electrician of the petitioner was not present at the time of checking is concerned, the same has no force of law since such objection has not been raised by the partner of the petitioner-unit, who has signed the Rojkam, without any protest. 10. 9. So far as submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that electrician of the petitioner was not present at the time of checking is concerned, the same has no force of law since such objection has not been raised by the partner of the petitioner-unit, who has signed the Rojkam, without any protest. 10. So far as contention raised by the petitioners that the appeal to be heard by Electrical Inspector is concerned, as held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) especially Paragraph No. 22(i) makes it clear that the Appellate Committee has power to decide the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that even such contention has not been raised before any of the authorities below and, hence, this contention is without any basis. All the contentions raised by the petitioners have been discussed in detail by the Appellate Authority and has rightly recorded the same in the impugned order. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and law prevailing with regard to the subject matter, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and the petition is meritless. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.