ORDER : 1. Heard Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Balram Jain, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Rohan Shah, learned AGP, for the respondent No.2. 2. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Electricity Company, has challenged the orders of the Appellate Authority by which the authorities have directed the electricity company to set off certain period while computing the bill for unauthorized use of electricity. 3. For the purposes of this order, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 15721 of 2014 be considered. 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner Electricity Company that the respondent No.1 was having connection for industrial purposes. On 11.07.2012, when checking was carried out by the installation squad in the premises of respondent No.1, it was found that the respondent No.1 was illegally supplying electricity to the premises of Plot No. 365 owned by one Shri Harshit Chandrakantbhai Jhariwala. 3.2 Having found that the respondent No.1 had carried out unauthorized use of electricity, on the basis of Checking Sheet dated 11.07.2012, a provisional bill under Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (‘the Act’ for short) was issued on 12.07.2012. The bill was for an amount of Rs.4,14,207.06 ps. 3.3 In accordance with the provisions of Sec.126 of the Act objections were invited. The respondent No.1 was heard on 20.07.2012 and a final bill for the amount was issued. 4. Aggrieved by this, the respondent No.1, preferred an appeal before the Electrical Inspector, Surat - the Appellate Authority under Sec.127 of the Act. It was the case of the respondent before the Appellate Authority that since Proforma-15 was filled in for merger of single phase and three phase meter on 02.04.2012, the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012 should not have been computed for the period of the bill for the purposes of unauthorized use of electricity. The stand of the electricity company, the petitioner, was that once it was admitted by the respondent No.1 and based on the checking sheet it was found that there was unauthorized use of electricity, there was no reason for reducing the bill period for the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012. 5. The stand of the electricity company, the petitioner, was that once it was admitted by the respondent No.1 and based on the checking sheet it was found that there was unauthorized use of electricity, there was no reason for reducing the bill period for the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012. 5. Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner – electricity company would submit that reading of the order of the Appellate Authority would indicate that it was undisputed and even an admitted position on the basis of the checking sheets signed by the respondent No.1 that though the electricity connection was for plot No. 366 for industrial purposes, there was supply of electricity across the boundary to plot No.365 which admittedly was an “unauthorized use” in accordance with the provisions of Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 5.1 Taking the Court through the order of the Appellate Authority, she would submit that once having conclusively found that the use of electricity was unauthorized, merely because of merging of single phase to three phase for the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012 could not have been ground for reduction of the bill for the aforesaid period on that count. 5.2 In support of her submission, Ms.Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner- electricity company, would rely on two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 2014 in the case of Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs. Rajan M Shah, and in Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2014 in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs. Shree Vardhaman Salt Works. 6. Dr.Balram Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1, at the outset, requests for time on the ground that the amounts as per the bill originally assessed have been paid and he would want time to take instructions and place on record documents to suggest such payments. Looking to the orders passed in these petitions, over a period of four years from 2015, the request made by the learned counsel was refused. Looking to the orders passed in these petitions, over a period of four years from 2015, the request made by the learned counsel was refused. He, therefore, made submissions on merit to state that the order of the Appellate Authority was just and proper, inasmuch as, no fault can be found with the authorities in reducing the bill period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012 as there was a merger of connections from single phase to three phase and during that period it is not the case of the electricity company that there was unauthorized use. 6.1 Dr.Jain, learned counsel, would submit that the respondent No.1 continues to pay electricity charges as per the bills so advanced. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, factual satisfaction itself indicates that it was not an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 was issued an electrical connection for industrial purposes for the premises on plot No. 366. When the checking was carried out on 11.07.2012, a copy of the checking sheet which is annexed to the petition clearly indicated that the connection of 360 was also used to supply power for 15.25 kv load for plot No. 365 which was owned by a separate entity who individually had a separate electricity connection. Reading of the checking sheet indicates that even the respondent No.1 had admitted to this by signing on the checking sheet. It is in this context that the provisions of Sec.126 of the Act, especially the one which defines the term “unauthorized use of electricity” needs to be appreciated. In accordance with Sec.126-B, amongst others which are defined as unauthorized use of electricity, sub-clause (v) thereof specifically provides that when there is use of electricity for the premises for areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized, the same would be unauthorized use of electricity. Sub-clause (v) of clause B of Sec.126 reads as under: “126. Assessment.- xxx xxx xxx (b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity xxx xxx xxx (v) for the purposes other than for which the supply of electricity was unauthorized.]” 8. The Appellate Authority in its finding so recorded thus came to the conclusion that there is unauthorized use for the period in question. Assessment.- xxx xxx xxx (b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity xxx xxx xxx (v) for the purposes other than for which the supply of electricity was unauthorized.]” 8. The Appellate Authority in its finding so recorded thus came to the conclusion that there is unauthorized use for the period in question. Therefore, having once come to that conclusion, there was no reason why it could have truncated the period of assessment for the period from 02.04.2012 to 11.07.2012. 8.1 In the case of Rajan M Shah (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considering Clause 34 of the conditions and miscellaneous charges for supply of electrical energy held as under: “6. In view of the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the only question that arises for our determination is as to whether the supplementary bill for the pilferage of electricity should be prepared for a period of 90 days or for a period of 180 days prior to the date of checking which was made on 06.11.2013 when the pilferage of electricity came to the notice of the appellant company. 7. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent that the period should be considered from the date of replacement of earlier metering system till the checking was made on 06.11.2013 and not for a period of 180 days prior to the date of checking when pilferage of electricity was noticed i.e. 180 days prior to 06.11.2013, it is worth to reproduce the period of assessment as envisaged in condition No.34 of the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy, which reads as under: PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT: The assessment of energy under this Clause 34 shall apply on the following basis: “1. Past six months from the date of detection, (for seasonal industries Six working months, excluding off season period declared by the consumer); or 2. Actual period from the date of commencement of supply upto the date of detection; or 3. Actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which evidence is detected within six months from the date of detection and upto the date of detection; or 4. Actual period from the date of commencement of supply upto the date of detection; or 3. Actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which evidence is detected within six months from the date of detection and upto the date of detection; or 4. The actual period from the date of the previous installation checking (and resulted into supplementary bill) under provisions of this clause within six months period of the date of the detection under consideration and upto the date of detection.” 8. It is true that the consumer has already given up the contention as regard theft/pilferage of electricity committed by him and also agreed for preparation of supplementary bill by considering the D factor to be that of 90 days as recorded by the learned Single Judge. From the record and proceedings, it appears that the consumer acted smartly and adopted a latent modus operandi for committing theft of electricity by slightly breaking the rubber cap of neutral which was proceeded towards the meter and the arrangement was made so that one could not notice it with open eyes. The argument advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant that this sort of abstraction of electricity slightly cutting down the rubber cap of the neutral and placing a regulatory switch and with the help of that recording of consumption can be stopped without tampering either with the meter or its components was not acceptable to us and therefore we thought it fit to request the learned counsel for the appellant to practically demonstrate such arrangement by which the consumer has committed theft of electricity. In response thereto, the learned advocate for the appellant arranged a live demonstration in the open court in presence of learned advocates for the respective parties and the demonstration made by the officials of the appellant company was viewed by us and we have noticed that cutting down latently the neutral which was not noticeable with the open eyes and placing a regulatory switch, the recording of consumption of electricity can be avoided. 9. 9. In this view of the matter, whenever a wise consumer can arrange for such sort of pilferage of electricity without tampering with the meter or its components and when criteria No.3 of condition No.34 clearly provides for the actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which evidence is detected, in our opinion, this criteria cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case because it is not the case of either party that at the time when the meter was changed in August 2013 the theft of electricity was detected by the officials of the appellant company. Since it is not the case of either of the party that the theft was detected at the time when the meter was changed in the month of August 2013, there is no occasion of counting the actual period as provided in criteria 3 of condition No.34 and the learned Single Judge appears to have misconstrued the criteria provided for assessment of period since the earlier meter was not changed due to the detection of theft of electricity by the consumer. The essential part of criteria No.3 is the replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected. Here, in this case, the case of the consumer does not fall within that criteria because the essential part of criteria No.3 is missing in this case. 10. It is also relevant to note that the learned Single Judge has also observed that when the meter was replaced in the month of August 2013, it amounts to inspection of the premises. However, it is nobody’s case that at the time of replacement of the metering system, the premises of the consumer was inspected. The facts of replacement of meter and inspection of premises are altogether different. In our opinion, meter can be changed at any time without inspecting the premises and when the inspection is sought to be carried out, it means that the authority may have some doubt about the pilferage of energy. Thus, the observation of learned Single Judge that the replacement of meter in the month of August 2013 amounts to inspection of the premises appears to be based upon presumption only. However, the fact appears to be otherwise. 11. Thus, the observation of learned Single Judge that the replacement of meter in the month of August 2013 amounts to inspection of the premises appears to be based upon presumption only. However, the fact appears to be otherwise. 11. Even if the officers of the appellant by exercising due care and diligence could not notice the pilferage of electricity at the time of replacement of metering system, it did not bring the case of the consumer for the assessment of lesser period commencing from replacement of metering system for want of evidence of pilferage of electricity and resultant replacement of meter, as envisaged in criteria No.3. Further, even if in connivance or with the open eyes the officials of the appellant did not notice the pilferage while replacing the metering system, it would not eliminate the possibility of pilferage of energy by the consumer. 12. Now, a bare perusal of criteria Nos. 2 and 4 clearly indicates that these criteria are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, in our opinion, criteria No. 2, 3 and 4 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, in this view of the matter, the case of the consumer falls within the provisions of criteria No.1. 13. As narrated above, the modus operandi adopted by the consumer for pilferage of electricity was such that even with the open eyes an ordinary man could not notice the breakage of neutral wire below the meter. In this situation at the time of replacement of meter in the month of August 2013, the officials of the appellant could not have noticed the pilferage of electricity, otherwise, at that time on detection of pilferage of electricity, a supplementary bill could have been issued. Even if it is presumed that the fact of theft of electricity was noticed by the officials of the appellant company at the time of replacement of earlier meter in the month of August 2013 and they acted in connivance with the consumer, in that case also, the position being the same that the consumer was committing theft of electricity by cutting down the neutral prior to the period of replacement of the meter in the month of August 2013 stands established. 14. 14. We have also perused the order passed by the Appellate Committee consisting of five members comprising experts as well as legal members. On perusal of the order of the Appellate Committee, it appears that the Appellate Committee elaborately dealt with all the rival contentions raised before it and also recorded the finding of fact that such sort of pilferage cannot be noticed while replacing the meter.” 9. That judgment of the Division Bench was followed in the case of Shree Vardhaman Salt Works (supra). Paras 8.2 to 9 of the judgment read as under: “[8.2] Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the recent decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.110/2014. In the case before the Division Bench, the meter was replaced in the month of August 2003 and thereafter when subsequently there was an inspection of the premises, pilferage of electricity was detected while slightly cutting down the rubber cap of neutral wire leading towards meter and placing the regulatory switch so that the current of the load connected would pass through current coil of meter but pressure coil of the meter would not receive the voltage and thereby recording of consumption of electricity would be bypassed. The electricity company issued the supplementary bill for a period of 180 days prior to the date of checking when the pilferage of electricity was noticed i.e. 180 days prior to 06.11.2013. The same was challenged. The learned Single Judge accepted the aforesaid and on an appeal the Division Bench has negatived the contention on behalf of the consumer and by observing in paras 9 to 13, it is held that the electricity company was justified in issuing the supplementary bill for theft of electricity / pilferage of electricity for 180 days prior to the date of detection of the pilferage of electricity i.e. 06.11.2013 and has held that criteria No.3 of condition No.34 would not be applicable. In paras 9 to 13, the Division Bench has observed as under: “9. In paras 9 to 13, the Division Bench has observed as under: “9. In this view of the matter, whenever a wise consumer can arrange for such sort of pilferage of electricity without tampering with the meter or its components and when criteria No.3 of condition No.34 clearly provides for the actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which evidence is detected, in our opinion, this criteria cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case because it is not the case of either party that at the time when the meter was changed in August 2013 the theft of electricity was detected by the officials of the appellant company. Since it is not the case of either of the party that the theft was detected at the time when the meter was changed in the month of August 2013, there is no occasion of counting the actual period as provided in criteria 3 of condition No.34 and the learned Single Judge appears to have misconstrued the criteria provided for assessment of period since the earlier meter was not changed due to the detection of theft of electricity by the consumer. The essential part of criteria No.3 is the replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected. Here, in this case, the case of the consumer does not fall within that criteria because the essential part of criteria No.3 is missing in this case. 10. It is also relevant to note that the learned Single Judge has also observed that when the meter was replaced in the month of August 2013, it amounts to inspection of the premises. However, it is nobody’s case that at the time of replacement of the metering system, the premises of the consumer was inspected. The facts of replacement of meter and inspection of premises are altogether different. In our opinion, meter can be changed at any time without inspecting the premises and when the inspection is sought to be carried out, it means that the authority may have some doubt about the pilferage of energy. Thus, the observation of learned Single Judge that the replacement of meter in the month of August 2013 amounts to inspection of the premises appears to be based upon presumption only. However, the fact appears to be otherwise. 11. Thus, the observation of learned Single Judge that the replacement of meter in the month of August 2013 amounts to inspection of the premises appears to be based upon presumption only. However, the fact appears to be otherwise. 11. Even if the officers of the appellant by exercising due care and diligence could not notice the pilferage of electricity at the time of replacement of metering system, it did not bring the case of the consumer for the assessment of lesser period commencing from replacement of metering system for want of evidence of pilferage of electricity and resultant replacement of meter, as envisaged in criteria No.3. Further, even if in connivance or with the open eyes the officials of the appellant did not notice the pilferage while replacing the metering system, it would not eliminate the possibility of pilferage of energy by the consumer. 12. Now, a bare perusal of criteria Nos. 2 and 4 clearly indicates that these criteria are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, in our opinion, criteria No. 2, 3 and 4 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, in this view of the matter, the case of the consumer falls within the provisions of criteria No.1. 13. As narrated above, the modus operandi adopted by the consumer for pilferage of electricity was such that even with the open eyes an ordinary man could not notice the breakage of neutral wire below the meter. In this situation at the time of replacement of meter in the month of August 2013, the officials of the appellant could not have noticed the pilferage of electricity, otherwise, at that time on detection of pilferage of electricity, a supplementary bill could have been issued. In this situation at the time of replacement of meter in the month of August 2013, the officials of the appellant could not have noticed the pilferage of electricity, otherwise, at that time on detection of pilferage of electricity, a supplementary bill could have been issued. Even if it is presumed that the fact of theft of electricity was noticed by the officials of the appellant company at the time of replacement of earlier meter in the month of August 2013 and they acted in connivance with the consumer, in that case also, the position being the same that the consumer was committing theft of electricity by cutting down the neutral prior to the period of replacement of the meter in the month of August 2013 stands established.” Considering the facts of the case on hand and two checking sheets i.e. the checking sheet prepared on earlier date of inspection of meter and the subsequent checking sheet on which the pilferage of electricity / theft of electricity has been found, considering the respective checking sheets it appears that on earlier checking, only the meter was checked and not the entire premises. Nothing is on record that on earlier date of inspection and/or checking of the meter, entire premises was inspected. On the subsequent checking it has been found that not only the meters are tampered with but a special arrangement was made by the consumer directly getting the electricity supply without the same being recorded in the meter and the modus operandi was such that by making the arrangement to consume the electrical energy by bypassing the meter and making an arrangement to obstruct electrical energy directly without being recorded in the meter. Similar is the situation with respect to the case in which earlier the meter was changed and subsequently the theft of electricity has been detected. The modus operandi adopted by the consumer for pilferage of electricity was such that unless the entire premises is inspected, such a theft of electricity/pilferage of electricity is not noticed. What is subsequently noticed on the date of subsequent checking was not noticed earlier on earlier checking and as observed hereinabove as such on earlier occasion only the meter was checked. Under the circumstances, criteria Nos.2, 3 and 4 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. What is subsequently noticed on the date of subsequent checking was not noticed earlier on earlier checking and as observed hereinabove as such on earlier occasion only the meter was checked. Under the circumstances, criteria Nos.2, 3 and 4 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the respective consumer would fall within the provisions of criteria No.1. [8.3] It is required to be noted that finding recorded by the Appellate Committee that the respective consumers have committed the theft of electricity has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The Appellate Committee consisting of the Members comprising of experts as well as legal members have elaborately dealt with all the rival contentions raised before it and also recorded the finding of fact that the respective consumers have committed theft of electricity/pilferage of electricity by adopting modus operandi and to see that electricity is directly got by making special arrangement and not recorded through the meter. Therefore, on earlier inspection the meter was checked and nothing objectionable was found hardly matters and/or has no any relevance. [8.4] Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill issued by the electricity company confirmed by the Appellate Committee of issuing supplementary bill for theft of electricity, considering the period of 180 days prior to the date of subsequent checking and has materially erred in directing the electricity company to issue supplementary bill only from the date of earlier checking and/or replacement of meter as the case may be till the date of subsequent checking when the pilferage of electricity was noticed. [8.5] Even the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the onus is upon the electricity company to prove the theft of electricity for period prior to the date of checking when the pilferage of electricity is noticed is concerned, same is contrary to the statutory provisions more particularly condition No.34. [8.5] Even the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the onus is upon the electricity company to prove the theft of electricity for period prior to the date of checking when the pilferage of electricity is noticed is concerned, same is contrary to the statutory provisions more particularly condition No.34. It is required to be noted that as such similar provision / similar condition No.34 has been approved and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is held that once the theft of electricity is detected, the supplementary bill is required to be issued as per the ABCD formula and as per the relevant condition, in the present case condition No.34. Under the circumstances, it can be said that there is a statutory presumption and the moment theft of electricity is found, the electricity company can issue supplementary bill for theft of electricity for the period of 180 days prior to the date of checking when the pilferage of electricity is found, unless in the facts and circumstances of the case, the consumer is able to establish and prove by leading evidence that when earlier the meter was checked, everything was found OK and subsequently any illegality and/or theft of energy is noticed, on same facts and circumstances on which, previously, the consumer was not found to have committed theft. The decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ambeshwar Paper Mills Ltd. (Supra) upon which heavily reliance is placed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the consumers is required to be considered and/or appreciated considering the above situation. In the aforesaid case what is observed by the learned Single Judge is that if the consumer is able to satisfy the authority that at the time of previous inspection checking, the checking squad found everything in order and no electricity theft was noticed in any manner and it is established that if the previous checking was done in proper manner and subsequently after that checking, if any illegality or theft of electricity is noticed on the same set of facts on which, previously, the consumer was not found to have committed theft, the consumer can get the benefit of the same. It is required to be noted that even in the said decision also the learned Single Judge also specifically observed that it, however, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of inspection checking at the relevant time and at the subsequent time. Thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ambeshwar Paper Mills Ltd. (Supra) would not be of any assistance to the consumers. On the contrary, following observations and clarification in para 16 of the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. “16. Mr.Mehta thereafter has vehemently argued that the theft bill is required to be calculated as per the formula M x H x C, which is contained in Condition No.34 of the Conditions framed by the Board. The respondent-Board has framed various Conditions for supply of Electrical Energy. Condition No.33 provides about Malpractice and Theft of Energy and Condition No.34 provides for payment for energy dishonestly used or abstracted or maliciously wasted or diverted. The method of computing period of assessment is also provided under Condition 34 and the same reads as under : “34. Payment for energy dishonestly used or abstracted or maliciously wasted or diverted. xxx xxx xxx PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT : The assessment of energy under this Clause 34 shall apply on the following basis : 1. Past six months from the date of detection, (for seasonal industries Six working months, excluding off season period declared by the consumer); or 2. Actual period from the date of commencement of supply upto the date of detection; or 3. Actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which evidence is detected within six months from the date of detection and upto the date of detection; or 4. The actual period from the date of the previous installation Checking (and resulted into supplementary bill) under provisions of this clause within six months period of the date of the detection under consideration and upto the date of detection. ... ... The actual period from the date of the previous installation Checking (and resulted into supplementary bill) under provisions of this clause within six months period of the date of the detection under consideration and upto the date of detection. ... ... .…" Mr.Mehta submitted that the revised bill was required to be issued to the petitioner only after considering the subsequent period from the date of the previous installation checking and the period prior to such last checking cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of sending the supplementary bill, especially when in the previous installation checking, nothing objectionable was found. He submitted that simply because everything was found to be in order during previous checking and on that basis, no supplementary bill is issued to the petitioner, is no ground to take the aforesaid period into account, which was already subjected to proper checking for the purpose of sending the revised bill. He submitted that Condition No.34 which provides that unless the previous checking has resulted into supplementary bill, the said period cannot be given set off is illegal and unconstitutional. He further submitted that even if nothing objectionable is found during earlier inspection and, therefore, no supplementary bill is issued, as per the amended Condition No.34, unless previous installation checking has resulted into supplementary bill, the aforesaid period will be taken into account. It is submitted that, in the instant case, the supplementary bill, at the most, could have been issued to the petitioner only from the date of previous installation checking, as, upto that period, i.e. when the previous installation checking was done, everything was found to be in order. He further submitted that in view of the amended Condition No.34, since such installation checking has not resulted into supplementary bill, unfortunately, no such benefit is available to the petitioner, and, therefore, even though for the earlier period as per the inspection, everything was found to be in order, yet, since no supplementary bill is given, the petitioner is subjected to revised bill, even though, during that period, he had not committed any alleged illegalities. In his submission, as per the above-referred amended condition even if the installation is checked previously for detection of theft and no theft is detected, then also, the bill will have to be issued for past six months. In his submission, as per the above-referred amended condition even if the installation is checked previously for detection of theft and no theft is detected, then also, the bill will have to be issued for past six months. No discretion is given either to the Officers of the Board, who prepare the theft bill, or even to the appellate committee to revise the bill from the date of last theft checking when no theft was found. The said Condition is arbitrary and, therefore, such amended condition is required to be struck down as being unreasonable and discriminatory. On behalf of the Board, it is submitted by Ms. Bhaya that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Patel Parshottamdas Vanmalidas v. Gujarat Electricity Board and another, AIR 1987 Gujarat 188, it cannot be said that the said Condition No.34 is arbitrary or is ultra vires in any manner. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has considered Condition No.34 (prior to its amendment) and it is observed in paragraphs 2 and 3 as under : “... ... … 2. As regards the contention of absence of procedure for submitting the case of the consumer before the impugned assessment of penalising action is taken, we are not able to appreciate this argument. The consumer with his open eyes enters into an agreement with the Board with such conditions. Those conditions are for the purpose of meeting certain exigencies in granting the service connection. It has also been made clear by the Board in Condition No.3 which is framed under the title "The Gujarat Electricity Board Prevention of Theft of Energy and Malpractices (By Consumers) Regulations, 1976" as follows : “3. The Board may, with a view to preventing the consumers from indulging in committing theft of energy and committing malpractices impose such conditions in its conditions of supply applicable to its consumers and forming part of the Contract of supply between the Board and the consumer as the Board may deem fit.” Thus, it is clear that the Board has formulated such a condition in order to safeguard its interest. Such a condition is there for the purpose of checking, apart from other things, the theft of electricity. It is not a case of any defective meter, but it is a case of theft of electricity by the consumer concerned. Such a condition is there for the purpose of checking, apart from other things, the theft of electricity. It is not a case of any defective meter, but it is a case of theft of electricity by the consumer concerned. As a matter of fact, in this case it is alleged that the petitioner, by inserting a plastic strip, was able to stop the running of the meter and thereby, committed theft of electricity. The condition clearly states as to the procedure that has to be adopted for the purpose of questioning the departmental action in levying penal charges. It has also been made clear in the condition as to the limit to which the Department can go for the purpose of assessing the theft of electricity. In no case the Department can go beyond a period of six months, according to this condition. In Condition No.34, we are able to see that manner of assessment also has been specified. If all these steps are taken by the Department, the condition itself states that the consumer has a remedy by filing an appeal to the appropriate authority within a specified time. Thus, a conjoint reading of this Condition and the purpose for which it is intended, clearly makes out that such a condition is not arbitrary or unreasonable, but within the powers of the Board and, in our opinion, it does not offend any of the Articles of the Constitution. The argument as if the imposition of penal assessment before filing an appeal is harsh and makes the appeal illusory cannot be appreciated. The penal assessment, as we have stated already, is restricted to a limited period. Such an assessment was made after the Department itself was satisfied with regard to the theft of electricity committed by the consumer concerned. Hence, it cannot be said that the appeal provided under Condition No.34 is an illusory one. 3. We are also not convinced that such a condition provided under Condition No.34, in any way, conflicts with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act as directly coming into conflict with S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Section 26(6) reads as follows : “26. 3. We are also not convinced that such a condition provided under Condition No.34, in any way, conflicts with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act as directly coming into conflict with S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Section 26(6) reads as follows : “26. xx xx xx (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsec.(1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity : Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this subsection, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days notice of his intention so to do.” The two decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Hamidullah Khan v. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board reported in AIR 1983 Madh Pra 1 and Basantibai v. M.P. Electricity Board, Indore, reported in AIR 1985 Madh Pra 70, (deal) with defective digit in the meter and a meter which was burnt respectively. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no question of any defective meter as such, but the consumer has dexterously inserted a plastic wire in order to stop the meter from running. This is a case, if it is proved, squarely coming under the theft of electricity and will not in any way be construed as one coming under the category of recording consumption under a defective meter. Hence, Condition No.34 does not come into conflict either with the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act or S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view that Condition No.34 is not unreasonable or arbitrary and it does not offend any of the provisions of the Constitution. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view that Condition No.34 is not unreasonable or arbitrary and it does not offend any of the provisions of the Constitution. For all these reasons, we do not find any substance in this Special Civil Application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. ... ... .…” A reference is also required to be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and others, (1998) 4 SCC 470 . In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has also approved the view of the Division Bench of this Court (supra) and it was found that such type of condition was valid. In paragraph 42 of the said judgment, the Apex Court found that the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has considered similar condition and upheld the validity thereof and ultimately, the Apex Court agreed with the view taken by this Court. Mr.Mehta, however, argued that in view of the amendment of Condition No.34, it is clear that unless the previous inspection resulted into supplementary bill, in a given case, even if it is found that everything was in order at the time of earlier inspection, and, therefore, no revised bill is issued, yet, while issuing the revised bill, even the said period, during which even no theft is committed, is also taken into consideration by the Board and, according to him, therefore, in view of this amendment, as indicated in the Condition, now, that part of the condition is arbitrary and ultra vires as even if the consumer is found to be honest and, therefore, no supplementary bill is issued during the intervening period, yet simply because no revised bill is issued, the said period is taken into consideration by the Board. Considering the reasoning of the Apex Court as well as of the Division Bench of this Court, in my view, condition No.34 cannot be held as arbitrary, discriminatory or ultra vires simply because by amendment it is provided that the assessment of energy will be for the actual period from the date of the previous installation checking (and resulted into supplementary bill) within six months' period of the date of detection under consideration and upto the date of detection. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that if a consumer is able to satisfy the authority that at the time of previous installation checking, the Checking Squad found everything in order and no electricity theft was noticed in any manner, then, naturally, the said aspect is required to be taken into account by the Board irrespective of whether the same resulted into a supplementary bill. In short, ultimately, if it is established that no irregularity or theft of energy was found at all in any manner, on the previous occasion during the earlier installation checking, naturally, the supplementary bill is required to be issued subsequent to the date of the previous installation checking irrespective of whether it resulted into supplementary bill. Even after issuance of supplementary bill if the consumer is able to establish even before the Appellate Committee that the socalled theft is committed only from a particular date, naturally, if the Appellate Committee, after examining the merits of such contention, comes to the conclusion that even though the supplementary bill is issued for six months, the consumer has committed theft only from a particular date, which may not cover the entire period of six months, naturally, the Appellate Committee can give appropriate relief at the time of determining the quantum of amount, which the consumer is required to pay. It cannot be said that if the previous checking is done in a proper manner and, subsequently after that checking if any illegality or theft of energy is noticed, on same set of facts on which, previously, the Consumer was not found to have committed theft, naturally, he will get the benefit of the same, even though he is not subjected to supplementary bill, naturally because he has not committed theft at that time. It, however, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of installation checking at the relevant time and at a subsequent time. I may clarify that, in a given case, if it is established that in an earlier checking, everything was found to be in order, and on similar facts and evidence, another inspection was carried out, wherein it is found that there is theft of electricity energy, then,naturally, in such case, the Board has to consider the question about computing the revised bill from the date of such previous checking only. So far as amended Condition No.34 is concerned, it requires to be considered from the aforesaid angle and if in a given case the consumer is able to satisfy that on the same set of material, previously checking was done in which everything was found to be in order and, subsequently, socalled illegality is committed by him at a subsequent stage, naturally, the earlier installation checking will have its own bearing and in such cases, naturally, the supplementary bill will be required to be issued from the date of such previous installation checking. Condition 34 is required to be considered in the aforesaid light. Under these circumstances, the contention of Mr.Mehta that Condition No.34, which gives no option to the Board but to issue supplementary bill in case the earlier checking has not resulted into supplementary bill, is without any basis. The said contention is accordingly rejected, as Condition No.34 is required to be read in the aforesaid manner and in that view of the matter, the said condition cannot be said to be ultra vires, illegal or unconstitutional in any manner.” If the entire judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ambeshwar Paper Mills Ltd. (Supra) is considered and read as a whole, it will be in favour of the electricity company. [8.6] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Kailash Plastic Processors (Supra) rendered in Special Civil Application No.5295/2001 by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the consumers is concerned, considering the facts in the said case and the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the said decision would not be of any assistance to the consumers. In the case before the learned Single Judge from the evidence on record, it was found that the meter was changed on 21.04.2000 and upto which time no tampering either of the meter or of the metal board was detected by the Board Officers and subsequently the theft was detected on 06.05.2000 and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the learned Single Judge directed to issue fresh bill for the period between 21.04.2000 to 06.05.2000. Under the circumstances, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Under the circumstances, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. [9.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these Letters Patent Appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.8520/2004 and 8524/2004 and the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16975/2004 are quashed and set aside and the respective decisions of the Appellate Committee confirming the supplementary bills and the supplementary bills issued by the Electricity Company for the period of 180 days prior to the date of detection of the pilferage of electricity/theft of electricity are hereby restored. All these Letters Patent Appeals are consequently allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 10. Having therefore unequivocally found unauthorized use of electricity at the hands of the respondent, it was not open for the Appellate Authority to reduce the periods of assessment in question. 11. Accordingly, the orders of the Electrical Inspector, Appellate Authority, Surat, in Appeal No. 07/2012 and in Appeal No. 8/2012-13 dated 28.01.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitions are allowed, accordingly.