JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.07.2003 passed by the Appellate Committee at Annexure -"D" in Appeal No. A-46/2003 preferred by the petitioners against the supplementary bill issued to the petitioners for an amount of Rs. 34,71,595.08 paise on the ground that the petitioners had indulged into theft of electrical energy. 2. The electrical installation at the premises of the petitioners was checked by the inspecting squad on 13.02.2003 and during the checking, total connected load found was 121.592 KW against the contract load of 37 KW and the seal on MMB (Metal Meter Box) as also four meter body seals were found duplicate. It was found that there was no terminal cover. The checking squad, thus, found that there was dishonest abstraction of electrical energy by the petitioners by tempering with MMB seal and meter body seals. The power supply of the petitioners was, therefore, disconnected and the MMB and meter body with those seals were sent for laboratory test and during the laboratory test, it was found that the seals of MMB and meter body were duplicate and that pivot of the bearing of meter was missing and the meter-reading counter-drum was not rotating at all, though the meter disc was rotating. Based on such inspection in the laboratory, inspection report was prepared. The Appellate Authority, on considering the checking sheet, as also laboratory inspection report, arrived at the conclusion that the case of theft of electrical energy was clearly established against the petitioners, however, it was found that the supplementary bill issued to the petitioners was not on proper calculation of the amount to be charged for theft of electrical energy. Therefore, the Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and directed the Gujarat Electricity Board (now the company - respondent No. 1) to revise the supplementary bill by taking ratio of load factor and diversity factor as discussed in the order passed by the Appellate Committee. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners submitted that finding of theft of electrical energy by the Appellate Committee is on observation that the meter was completely stopped as meter mechanism was tempered. Mr. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners submitted that finding of theft of electrical energy by the Appellate Committee is on observation that the meter was completely stopped as meter mechanism was tempered. Mr. Shah submitted that as mentioned in the checking sheet, the meter recorded consumption of electrical energy between last date of reading of the meter and the date of checking. Drawing attention of the Court to clause (6) of the checking sheet, Mr. Shah pointed out that the last reading taken on 08.01.2003 was 012015, whereas, the reading of the meter taken on the date of checking, i.e. on 13.02.2003, was 012856 and as further mentioned about last reading, it was 012859.4 unit. He, therefore, submitted that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is contrary to what was observed and recorded by the checking squad at the time of checking of the meter. Mr. Shah submitted that irrespective of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the petitioners run hotel, which is considered to be an industry for tourism purpose as per the circular dated 17.05.1997 and, therefore, even if theft of energy is to be believed, supplementary bill to the petitioners was required to be issued by considering the hotel of petitioners as Industry. Mr. Shah also submitted that the load of 121.592 KW is stated to be consumed against the contract load of 37 KW, by treating all the equipments as used for 24 hours which was not permissible as all the electrical equipments like Air Conditioners, lamps, fans, tube lights etc. are not supposed to be used or ordinarily not used for 24 hours and, therefore, the supplementary bill issued to the petitioners by considering the total 121.592 KW load was required to be quashed by the Appellate Committee and substantial reduction in the supplementary bill was required to be given to the petitioners. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Desai for the respondents submitted that the Appellate Committee having considered the checking sheet and laboratory inspection report found that the petitioner indulged into theft of electrical energy. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Desai for the respondents submitted that the Appellate Committee having considered the checking sheet and laboratory inspection report found that the petitioner indulged into theft of electrical energy. She submitted that there is no contradiction between the observations made in the checking sheet and the finding recorded by the Appellate Committee and since, the Appellate Committee has, on considering inspection report, arrived at the finding of theft of electrical energy by the petitioners, the Court may not interfere with such finding in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. As regards total connected load of 121.592 KW found at the time of checking of the installation of the petitioners, she submitted that the total load calculated is on total load capacity for each of equipments found at the time of checking and it is not correct to say that all those equipments are taken to have been run for 24 hours but for the purpose of arriving at unauthorized use of load by the petitioners, the total load was calculated by taking maximum load power qua each of the equipments found at the premises of the petitioners. She submitted that the Appellate Committee has given much relaxation in the supplementary bill by directing the board to take ratio of load factor and diversity factor as mentioned in the impugned order and, therefore, the contention of petitioners that the load of 121.592 KW was wrongly calculated, is not required to be accepted. She, therefore, urged to dismiss the petition. 5. The Court, having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that when the electrical installation of the petitioners was checked on 13.02.2003, it was observed that as against the contract load of 37.0 KW, the connected load was of 121.592 KW. Therefore, the petitioners unauthorizedly used extra load of power. As regards the seals on MMB and meter, it was found that all the seals were duplicate. If the seals are found duplicate, the presumption would be that the original seals were taken out for the purpose of tempering with the meter mechanism. During the inspection in the laboratory, it was observed that all seals on MMB and meter body were changed and duplicate seals were used on MMB and meter. If the seals are found duplicate, the presumption would be that the original seals were taken out for the purpose of tempering with the meter mechanism. During the inspection in the laboratory, it was observed that all seals on MMB and meter body were changed and duplicate seals were used on MMB and meter. As regards the internal mechanism of the meter, it was observed, during the inspection in the laboratory, that pivot of bearing was missing and even though the meter disc was rotating, the meter at once stage was found totally stopped. Thus, from above such observations during the inspection in laboratory the Appellate Committee arrived at the conclusion that a case of theft of electrical energy was clearly established against the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, however, submitted that the finding recorded by the Appellate Committee that the meter was completely stopped is contrary to the observation made by the checking squad and recorded in the checking sheet as the meter recorded the consumption between last date of reading of the meter and the date of checking of the electrical installation of the petitioners. The Court, however, finds that the Appellate Committee has not recorded finding to the effect that the meter had remained stopped in between the last date of reading and the date of checking of the electrical installation of the petitioners. What is observed by the Appellate Committee is that as per the laboratory inspection report, pivot of the bearing of the meter was missing and during the inspection, it was found that though the meter disc was rotating but the meter reading counter-drum i.e. meter was completely stopped. Thus, the observation of the Appellate Committee is to record finding that there was tempering with the meter mechanism as a result of which the meter would not continue to record actual consumption of the electrical energy used by the petitioners. Thus, the observation of the Appellate Committee is to record finding that there was tempering with the meter mechanism as a result of which the meter would not continue to record actual consumption of the electrical energy used by the petitioners. The Court finds that on three different observations i.e. (1) the seals on the MMB and meter body were duplicate, (2) as against the contract load of 37.0 KW, the petitioners were found to have connected total load of 121.592 KW and (3) during the laboratory inspection, not only it was confirmed that the seals on the MMB and meter body were duplicate but, it was also found that the meter stopped at the particular stage, though the meter disc was found rotating, the Appellate Authority has rightly arrived at finding of theft of electric energy by the petitioners which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The contention that calculation of total load power of 121.592 KW was not correct cannot be accepted as the checking sheet shows that after taking individual load of each equipment as per its capacity, the total load was counted and there is nothing to suggest that it was taken as used for 24 hours. In any case, such is a question of fact and the Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not decide on the disputed question of fact. As the Court does not find any error in the ultimate conclusion reached by the Appellate Committee, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.