Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1618 (GUJ)

Hiralal B. Masani v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.

2016-08-03

A.J.DESAI

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Committee by which the appeal being Appeal No. B-50/2005 preferred by the petitioner challenging the assessment bill issued by the Company the ground of theft of electricity has not been entertained. 2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya and have filed affidavit-in-reply opposing grant of any relief. 3. The facts arise from the record are as under: 3.1. That the petitioner is a proprietary firm namely Upasana Ice Factory, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing ice, which is mainly used for preserving the fishes in the boats which are operated from Porbandar Coast by small fishermen of the area. 3.2. The respondent is in business of distribution of electricity to its consumers and the present petitioner is one of the consumers. The petitioner was provided electrical connection on 07.10.2002 and was granted load of 86 HP. 3.3. The Deputy Engineer of the respondent company visited the manufacturing unit on 04.12.2004 for replacement of old meter with the latest meter, which is known as static meter. In the presence of the representative of the petitioner, the old meter was removed and new meter was installed on the same day i.e. 04.12.2004. The rojkam with regard to the same was prepared on the same day and the representative of the petitioner had put his signature on the said rojkam. The old meter was removed and thereafter, was packed in a seal cover and the petitioner was informed that the meter shall be examined by the approved laboratory including the wiring and seals of the said old meter. 3.4. The petitioner received a communication dated 03.02.2005 from the respondent along with the supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 3,63,649.69/- considering the rojkam prepared on 04.12.2004. The details were supplied to the petitioner along with the said communication treating the case of the petitioner as theft of the electricity by the petitioner. The revised bill was issued on 03.02.2005 relying upon laboratory report dated 02.02.2005 carried out in the presence of the several officers as well as the representative of the petitioner. The details were supplied to the petitioner along with the said communication treating the case of the petitioner as theft of the electricity by the petitioner. The revised bill was issued on 03.02.2005 relying upon laboratory report dated 02.02.2005 carried out in the presence of the several officers as well as the representative of the petitioner. The laboratory report was supplied to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 02.02.2005 on which the representative of the petitioner has put his signature. 3.5. Being aggrieved by the revised bill, the petitioner preferred the above referred appeal by detailed representation. 3.6. The Appellate Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and after considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal. 4. Hence, this petition. 5. Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following questions for the decision. "[1] That the petitioner has not committed any theft of the electricity as alleged by the respondents. [2] The petitioner has not even committed any malpractice, which would entitle the respondent to charge or levy any penalty for a period of six months. [3] In the alternative to the above aspect, he has raised the contention that since the case as alleged of theft of the electricity has been detected on 02.02.2005, the case of the petitioner would be covered under the amended provisions of Section 126(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, the petitioner can be asked to pay the penalty by using multiplier of 1.5 and not 2.5, which has been calculated while issuing the revised bill." 6. In support of his first as well as second submissions, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the manufacturing unit is located at sea-shore and therefore, the weather might have affected the electrical gazette. He would further submit that when the rojkam was prepared on 04.12.2004, no irregularity was found in the old meter by the Deputy Engineer, who had installed the new static meter. He would further submit that only one irregularity is recorded that the paper seals were found torn, which would be possible pursuant to the weather at the sea-shore. He would further submit that when the rojkam was prepared on 04.12.2004, no irregularity was found in the old meter by the Deputy Engineer, who had installed the new static meter. He would further submit that only one irregularity is recorded that the paper seals were found torn, which would be possible pursuant to the weather at the sea-shore. He would further submit that the meter was tested by accue check test, which was carried out on the spot and thereafter, subsequent observations, which have been carried out in the laboratory on 02.02.2005, cannot only be relied for treating the case of the petitioner either under the malpractice or theft of the electricity. By taking me through the laboratory report dated 02.02.2005, he would submit that only some seals have been found cut, however, no material was found from the body of the meter and therefore, it cannot be said that there was dishonesty on the part of the petitioner. He would submit that some male part teeth as well as female part teeth were found cut and are possible pursuant to bad weather. He would further submit that the revised bill, which was issued on the ground of electricity theft, is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. He would further submit that there is no evidence in support of the laboratory report for so-called irregularities with regard to the seals of the meter and therefore, in absence of any material, reassessment bill and revised bill as well as order of the committee be quashed and set aside. He has relied upon the decision in case of Modern Terry Towels Ltd. V. Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2003(4) GLR 3122 as well as unreported judgement in case of Pushpaben Ramniklal Mehta V. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. passed in Special Civil Application No. 15088 of 2004 dated 19.07.2003. 8. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. V. Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. was challenged by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 156 of 2003, by which it was observed that the ratio laid down by above referred judgement will not be treated as precedent. 9. 8. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. V. Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. was challenged by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 156 of 2003, by which it was observed that the ratio laid down by above referred judgement will not be treated as precedent. 9. He would further submit that though rojkam was prepared on 04.12.2004, it was established for the first time before the authority that alleged irregularity was found in the report of the laboratory dated 02.02.2005 i.e. subsequent to 09.12.2004 and therefore, the case would be governed as per the new act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Torrent Power AEC Ltd. V. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006(2) GLH 375 . By taking me through Paras - 19, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 and 21 of the said judgement, he would further submit that the case of the petitioner would cover under the new act and therefore, the petitioner ought to have issued the bill as per Section 126(6) of the Act and ought to have applied rate equal to 1.5 time tariff applicable for the industrial category as per the existing provisions at that time. He would further submit that the alleged case of the theft has come on surface only on 02.02.2005 and the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy framed under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Electric Supply Act, 1948 would not be applicable and therefore, the authority be directed to issue the revised bill calculating the rates under Section 126(2) of the Act. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing for the respondents, would submit that when the Deputy Engineer visited the manufacturing unit of the petitioner on 04.12.2004 for replacement of the electrical meter, he found that the paper seals applied on the door of the meter were torn, the same has been specifically stated in the said rojkam. She would further submit that since the officer, who has prepared the rojkam, found irregularity thought it fit to send the meter for laboratory examination and therefore, old meter was packed in the sealed cover and the petitioner was accordingly informed about the same. She would further submit that since the officer, who has prepared the rojkam, found irregularity thought it fit to send the meter for laboratory examination and therefore, old meter was packed in the sealed cover and the petitioner was accordingly informed about the same. The meter was checked in the laboratory in the presence of the independent officer from the State of Gujarat and officer from the Vigilance Branch of the company as well as the representative of the petitioner on 02.02.2005, wherein number of irregularities were found, when the meter was checked from inside. She would further submit that when the meter metal body (MMB) along with the meter was inspected, it was found that paper seal of MMB was found cut and both the MMB plastic seals, which were transparent, were inspected by cutting open and it was found that the male part teeth were pressed and there were scratch marks on the male as well as female parts. It was also found that MMB seals were refitted. He would further submit that tampering of the meter was found when the terminal cover as well as the seals were inspected wherein male part teeth were pressed and female part teeth was not properly fitted and scratch marks in the terminal cover seal female as well as male parts, all the four meter body seals were also inspected and found that after cutting open having scratch marks on male and female part and teeth were also found mutilated. She would further submit that all the four meter body seals were found tampered with. She would further submit that only the meter body seals were not tampered with but reverse lock fitting was found different than the original fitting and the disc of the meter was rotated in the reverse direction and the meter disc was touching magnet while rotating. This means the disc of the meter rotated in the reverse direction, which would show less electricity consumption. All this inspection was carried out and recorded in the report wherein the representative of the petitioner has put his signature and accordingly, the bill was issued as per the formula applied under the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy. She would further submit that this is a clear case of theft of electricity as defined under Section 33(b) of the said condition. She would further submit that this is a clear case of theft of electricity as defined under Section 33(b) of the said condition. She would further submit that even it is not a case of the malpractice but a case of the theft of the electricity and according to the Condition -34 of the Conditions, the bill has been issued by the authority, which does not call for any interference by this Court, particularly while exercising powers under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. She would further submit that the authority as well as the appellate committee has followed the procedure prescribed under the Act as well as under the said conditions. She would further submit that it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the respondent authority or the appellate committee have breached any principles of law like giving any opportunity of hearing etc. and therefore, the Court had to exercise its powers under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. 11. As far as the submission made with regard to the detection of theft of electricity, she would submit that the rojkam was prepared on 04.12.2004 and it is very clear that paper seals were found torn, which raised some doubt in the mind of the Deputy Engineer and therefore, the meter was sent for detailed examination to the approved laboratory. She would further submit that tampering with the meter seals etc. cannot be found different on the face of it unless some examination in detail by the competent technician i.e. in Government approved laboratory. She would further submit that the meter, which was removed, was packed in a sealed cover and was opened only in the presence of the representative of the petitioner on 02.02.2005 and when the same was examined, several mischief found and recorded the same and therefore, it is presumed that tampering with the meter was made prior to 02.02.2005 and no subsequent to 09.12.2004 as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner. She, therefore, would submit that as per the judgement in case of Torrent Power AEC Ltd. V. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the case of the petitioner can be treated as theft detected prior to 09.12.2014 and therefore, the authority has not committed any error by applying 2.5 multiplier under the Condition - 34 of the said Conditions and therefore, the petition be dismissed. 12. 12. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 13. As far as the submission made by Mr. Bharat Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner about the detection of theft of electricity is concerned, before dealing with the submission, I would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of the conditions 33(A), 33(B) and 34. "33. (A) 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 provisions 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] 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." "33. (B) Theft of Energy Any consumer who dishonestly abstracts, consumers or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the India Penal Code and the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence for such dishonest abstraction. 34. Payment for energy dishonestly used or abstracted or maliciously wasted or diverted. Where it is established to the satisfaction of Board's officer that a consumer [1] xxx xxx xxx or [2] xxx xxx xxx or [3] the applied/contracted load The consumption so assessed shall be reduced for the consumption recorded and billed by the meter and charged at the appropriate tarif rates. The remaining consumption shall be charged at 2.5 Time the applicable tarif rates under the head 'Energy charges" and "Fuel Cost Adjustment Charges". 14. The remaining consumption shall be charged at 2.5 Time the applicable tarif rates under the head 'Energy charges" and "Fuel Cost Adjustment Charges". 14. It is true that there was a scheme in the respondent company to replace the old meter in the State of Gujarat and accordingly, the Deputy Engineer visited the place of the petitioner on 04.12.2004 with intention to replace the old meter. After replacing the old meter, the rojkam was prepared and on the said rojkam, the signature of representative of the petitioner was obtained. In the laboratory, the meter was checked in the presence of the representative of the petitioner wherein the papers seals, which were applied on the door of the meter on 07.10.2002, were found in torn conditions and accordingly, the same was recorded. The said meter was packed in a gunny bag and was again wrapped and seal was applied and signature of the representative of the petitioner was taken on the same and was sent for laboratory test and accordingly, the petitioner was informed. Different parts of the meter were examined in detail in the laboratory in the presence of the officers of Energy and Petrochemicals Department as well as officers from the Vigilance Branch of the company and representative of the petitioner. Though the accue check test was carried out and when the meter was removed on 04.12.2004, number of irregularities were found that different parts of the meter was tampered with. The laboratory report clearly indicates that the paper seals of MMB was found cut and both the MMB plastic seals, which were transparent, also found cut and opened. It was also found that male part teeth as well as female part teeth indicate that the seals were tampered with. It was also found that both the MMB seals refitted that means in past, MMB seals were opened and again refitted. The terminal cover was also found cut and opened, male part teeth were found pressed and female part teeth were not properly fitted and there was scratch mark in the terminal cover seal and on male as well as on female parts. All four meter body seals were found having scratch mark on male and female teeth were also found mutilated. It clearly indicates that all the seals applied and fitted were found tampered with, when the detailed examination of the meter was made in the laboratory. All four meter body seals were found having scratch mark on male and female teeth were also found mutilated. It clearly indicates that all the seals applied and fitted were found tampered with, when the detailed examination of the meter was made in the laboratory. It was also found that the reverse lock fitting, which was originally fitted, was found different and the disc of the meter being rotated in the reverse direction that means if he said disc is rotated in the reverse direction, the units, which were recorded in the said meter, would go in the descending order and would show less electricity consumption. Therefore, in my opinion, except the petitioner, there was no other person, who was interested that less consumption of the electricity is recorded in the meter and therefore, it is the case of the theft of electricity. 15. I would like to reproduce the relevant observations made in case of Torrent Power AEC Ltd. V. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) since both the advocates appearing for the respective parties have relied upon the said decision, which is dealt with the applicability of the various provisions of the Act and the condition with regard to different time zone. "19. Cases where theft detected during period from 10th December 2003 to 9th December 2004 19.1 The Central Government specified 10th day of June 2003 as the date on which Sections 1 to 120 and Section 122 to 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force. Clause (d) of Section 172containing transitional provisions reads as under:- "172. Transitional provisions.-Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this Act,- (d) the State Government may, by notification, declare that any or all the provisions contained in this Act, shall not apply in that State for such period, not exceeding six months from the appointed date, as may be stipulated in the notification." By notification dated 4th July 2003, the Government of Gujarat declared that all the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 shall not apply in the State for a period of six months from the appointed date i.e. 10th June, 2003. Accordingly, the provisions of the new Act came to be applied in the State of Gujarat with effect from 10th December 2003. 19.2 However, clauses (a) and (b) of Section 172 also provide as under:- "172. Accordingly, the provisions of the new Act came to be applied in the State of Gujarat with effect from 10th December 2003. 19.2 However, clauses (a) and (b) of Section 172 also provide as under:- "172. Transitional provisions.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act,- (a) a State Electricity Board constituted under the repealed laws shall be deemed to be the State Transmission Utility and a licensee under the provisions of this Act for a period one year from the appointed date....... Provided that the State Government may, by notification, authorise the State Electricity Board to continue to function as the State Transmission Utility or a licensee for such further period beyond the said period of one year....... (b) all licenses,......... granted under the provisions of the repealed laws may, for a period of not exceeding one year from the appointed date or such earlier period as may be notified by the Appropriate Government, continue to operate as if the repealed laws were in force with respect to such licences,..... and thereafter such licences,......... shall be deemed to be licences,...... under this Act and all provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly to such licences,......" (emphasis supplied) 19.3 In view of the provisions of Section 172(b), it is clear that licenses in favour of the GEB and the AEC under the repealed laws continued to be valid till 9.12.2004 (for a period not exceeding one year from the appointed date which was 10.12.2003 for the State of Gujarat) and, therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the licensees must be accepted without any difficulty for the period upto 9.12.2004. Hence, as regards the cases where theft was detected prior to 10.12.2004, the matters will be governed by the Conditions of Supply and Miscellaneous Charges for supply of Electrical Energy framed by the GEB or by the AEC, as the case may be. Since, during this period, the consumers were governed by the Conditions of Supply and Miscellaneous charges and not by the provisions of the new Act, the question of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court would not arise in cases where theft was detected before 10.12.2004. But while deciding applications for interim injunction, Civil Court shall have to consider the principles laid down by this Court in Kiran Industries v. GEB, 1995 (2) GLR 1158 . But while deciding applications for interim injunction, Civil Court shall have to consider the principles laid down by this Court in Kiran Industries v. GEB, 1995 (2) GLR 1158 . 20(A) Period from 10th December 2004 to 30th March 2005 (B) Period from 31st March 2005 to 13th December, 2005. 20.1 It is stated on behalf of the GEB that by virtue of the notifications dated 10.6.2004 and 8.12.2004 of the State Government, the GEB continued to function as licensee right upto 31.3.2005. Under the Gujarat Electricity Industry (Reorganization and Regulations) Act, 2003 and the scheme framed thereunder, w.e.f 1.4.2005 the powers, duties and obligations of the GEB came to be vested in the Government of Gujarat and reinvested by the Government into Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited and the Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. and Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. It is contended on behalf of the Torrent Power AEC Ltd. as well as the GEB that by virtue of the provisions of Section 185(2), notwithstanding the repeal of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, all the Rules, notifications and licenses made or issued under the repealed laws shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, be deemed to have been done or taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also the contention urged on behalf of the AEC that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 21 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1901, the AEC Ltd. had framed Conditions of Supply and Miscellaneous Charges, particularly condition Nos. 22 and 23 read with Part II of the Conditions of Supply providing for definition of malpractice and theft of energy and the mode of assessment and also the power to disconnect electricity supply in case of detection of theft or malpractice for which the charges as assessed by the licensee are not paid. The brief reference to the said provisions has already been made earlier in para 3.3 of this judgment. The brief reference to the said provisions has already been made earlier in para 3.3 of this judgment. It is, therefore, vehemently submitted that even in absence of any specific detailed provisions for assessment of charges in theft cases, the supplementary bills issued by the AEC at two times the applicable tariff which are impugned in these appeals/petitions were in accordance with the Conditions of Supply and Miscellaneous Charges and, therefore, in accordance with law. Similar contention was raised on behalf of the GEB to claim liberty to revise the bills in theft cases from one and half times applicable tariff for six months to two times applicable tariff for twelve months. 20.2 We are of the view that merely because the GEB continued as distribution licensee till 31.3.2005, it did not mean that the time limit of one year stipulated in clause (b) of Section 172 of the Electricity Act, 2003 containing transitional provisions can be treated as extended beyond the period of one year from the appointed date (i.e. beyond 10.12.2004). In view of the second part of clause (b) of Section 172 [quoted in para 19.2 hereinabove], for the period from 10.12.2004 onwards, the licenses in favour of GEB and AEC were deemed to be licenses under the Electricity Act, 2003 and all provisions of the new Act accordingly apply to such licenses. Section 174 of the Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in the following terms:- "174. Act to have overriding effect.- Save as otherwise provided in section 173, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or if any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." Section 173 refers to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and Railways Act, 1989. 20.3 In view of the provisions of Sections 45, 50 and 62 of the Act, till 7th June 2005 there was no express power conferred on the State Commission to permit the licensee to recover charges in theft cases. 20.3 In view of the provisions of Sections 45, 50 and 62 of the Act, till 7th June 2005 there was no express power conferred on the State Commission to permit the licensee to recover charges in theft cases. Once we have taken the view that Section 126 imposing liability for electricity charges at the rate of one and half times the tariff applies in case of unauthorised use of electricity even in absence of any mens rea, it would be absurd to hold that when theft of electricity involving mens rea takes places, the consumer would not be liable to pay even the charges at one and half times the applicable tariff for a maximum period of six months (in case of industrial/commercial consumers), merely because Section 50 does not provide for assessment in theft cases. Even proceeding on the basis that the Act did not in terms confer on the licensee the power of assessment in theft cases till 7th June 2005, we would invoke the following principles enunciated by the Apex Court in M/s. Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation, AIR 2003 SC 2103 : (2003) 2 SCC 455 (Para 14):- "14. Two principles of construction - one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole - appear to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the Legislature. 'An intention to produce an unreasonable result', said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966 (1) QB 878), 'is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available'. 'An intention to produce an unreasonable result', said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966 (1) QB 878), 'is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available'. Where to apply words literally would 'defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result' we must 'do some violence to the words' and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v. I.R.C. (1966 AC 557)." (emphasis supplied) Applying the above principles, we hold that the consumers who were found by the licensee to have been prima-facie found involved in theft were liable to be assessed for electricity charges at one and half times applicable tariff for maximum six months in case of industrial consumers. At the same time, during this period, (where the theft was detected between 10th December 2004 and 30th March 2005), since the contention of the licensees that they can fall back on the Conditions of Supply to recover electricity charges in theft cases at two times the applicable tariff is already rejected in the preceding sub-para, the licensee could not have collected the amount at any rate higher than one and half times the applicable tariff for a period longer than six months in case of industrial/commercial consumers. 21. To sum up then, our conclusions are as under:- (i) The Electricity Act, 2003 (except Section 121) was brought into force by the Central Government on 10th June 2003, but in the State of Gujarat, its provisions came to be applied with effect from 10th December 2003. [Para 19.1] (ii) Although the terms of license issued in favour of the AEC and the GEB under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Conditions of Supply and Miscellaneous Charges framed by the said licensees under the said Acts continued to be operative till 9.12.2004, thereafter with effect from 10.12.2004, the distribution licenses in favour of those licensees continue to operate subject to their being in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. [Paras 19.3 and 20.2] (iii) Challenge to the legality of the Central Government order dated 8th June 2005 removing difficulties with reference to the powers of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 50 of the Act and to the subsequent amendment dated 14th December 2005 to Regulation (Section) 7.6.5 of the Gujarat State Electricity Supply Code is turned down. [Para 14] (iv) The Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Central Government order dated 8th June 2005 and the State Electricity Supply Code framed under Section 50 of the Act as amended with effect from 14th December 2005 and the Statutory Regulations framed under the other provisions of the Act constitute a complete self-contained code in respect of criminal as well as civil liability in cases of theft of electricity and also in respect of the civil liability for unauthorised use of electricity. [para 16] (v) Assessment to be made by the distribution licensee in theft cases is not governed by the provisions of Section 126 of the Act, but is governed by the provisions of Section 50 read with Regulation (Section) 7.6.5 of the Gujarat State Electricity Supply Code, 2005 as framed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and amended with effect from 14th December 2005. [paras 9 and 12] (vi) Against such assessment, remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Act is not available to the aggrieved party, but its remedy will be only before the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Act which will exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 154of the Act. [Para 9] (vii) Although there is no specific provision in Section145 of the Act for exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any proceeding in respect of any matter which the Special Court is empowered by or under the Act to determine, we are of the view that any dispute about civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the jurisdiction of Civil Court. [Paras 15 to 17] The aforesaid principles are applicable to all cases wherein theft is detected on or after 14th December 2005." 16. In the above provisions, now it is to be decided that whether the case would fall under Sub Clause (ii) of Para - 21 and first part of Clause (ii) of Para - 21 of the above referred decision or not. 17. In the above provisions, now it is to be decided that whether the case would fall under Sub Clause (ii) of Para - 21 and first part of Clause (ii) of Para - 21 of the above referred decision or not. 17. It is an undisputed fact that the place of the manufacturing unit of the petitioner was visited by the officer of the respondent company on 04.12.2004 for replacement of the old meter and accordingly, rojkam was prepared, which suggests that seals on the old meter was found in torn condition and therefore, the old meter was sent to the laboratory for detailed examination. It is not the case of the petitioner nor the allegations that when the old meter was examined on 02.02.2005, the condition of the gunny bag, in which the old meter was sealed, was tampered with by other persons and there was also possibility that internal part of the meter was tampered with by some unknown or third person. When the meter was removed on 04.12.2004, the aforesaid mischief was already in existence, which came to know only on 02.02.2005, when the said meter was examined in detail. Here the detection word cannot be read in this sense since there are various methods available to tamper with the meter, which would not imminently visible and the tampering with the internal part of the meter would come in the light when the same is examined in detail and therefore, the case of the petitioner would cover under first part of sub clause (ii) of Para 21 since the meter was first time examined on 04.12.2004 i.e. prior to 09.12.2014. Therefore, in my opinion, the petition is meritless and accordingly, the same stands disposed of as dismissed. Rule is discharged.