JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.06.2020 passed by the Assistant Electric Inspector in Appeal No.5 of 2019. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1, who is having RGPR category consumer being Consumer No.81451/10110/4. The respondent No.1 is having 3Q connection with total contracted load of 20 K.W., and the said electric connection which is provided to the premises of the respondent No.1, which is known as “Janish Farm” situated at Talala Sasan Road, Talala Highway, Gir. On 26.10.2018, the checking squad of the petitioner-Company visited the premises of the respondent No.1 and it is alleged that respondent No.1 was found in indulging in unauthorized used of electricity for commercial purpose and accordingly, a provisional supplementary bill of Rs.58,674.42 dated 01.11.2018 was issued and after considering the objection of the respondent No.1, a final supplementary bill of the same amount was issued on 14.12.2018. Being aggrieved by the final supplementary bill, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Assistant Electric Inspector being Appeal No.5 of 2019, in which, the Assistant Electric Inspector by its judgment dated 23.06.2020 quashed and set aside the final supplementary bill. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dave, appearing for the petitioner - Company has submitted that the Appellate Authority has not considered the policy of home stay declared by the Government of Gujarat, Department of Tourism dated 20.11.2014, more particularly clause 5(2). It is submitted by him that as per the Panchnama, the petitioner was having 12 rooms, and there was electricity in all the rooms, and hence, it was found that since the same was used for commercial purpose for 12 rooms, the supplementary bill was accordingly prepared. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Appellate Authority should have considered that the respondent No.1 has unauthorizedly used the electricity, since he is running a hotel in the farmhouse and has constructed the aforesaid rooms, including one swimming pool, one kitchen, one kids garden etc. It is submitted that for the same premises two licences are issued under the home stay to two persons viz., Mr. Ashishbhai Bhimbhai Nandaniya and Mrs. Prabhaben Bhimbhai Nandaniya, and hence, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. It is submitted that for the same premises two licences are issued under the home stay to two persons viz., Mr. Ashishbhai Bhimbhai Nandaniya and Mrs. Prabhaben Bhimbhai Nandaniya, and hence, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference, since before taking any action against the respondent No.1, the petitioner-Company should have verified all the aspects from the Tourism Department, which has given permission to run the home stay. He has referred that by the order dated 30.01.2018, the Tourism Department has granted approval for 6 rooms to one Shri Ashishbhai Bhimbhai Nandaniya and vide order dated 06/17.10.2017 approval has been granted for 6 rooms to Mrs. Prabhaben Bhimbhai Nandaniya i.e. the respondent No.1. He has further submitted that since there was a dispute with regard to the electricity connection and supply, the Manager (Commercial) of the Tourism Department vide communication dated 28.08.2018 has informed the Executive Engineer of the petitioner Company that as per the clause 12(2) of the Home Stay Policy, the electricity can only be charged as per domestic rates. He has submitted that despite the aforesaid communication, the petitioner-Company or the Executive Engineer did not verify all the aspects from the Tourism Department, and hence, after looking all these aspects, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal by quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill issued by the petitioner - Company, and hence, the writ petition may not be entertained. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents. 6. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute that by the orders dated 06/17.10.2017 and 30.01.2018, the respondent No.1 along with Mr. Aashishbhai Bhimbhai Nandaniya, were granted approval for running home stay, as per Home Stay Policy of the State Government for 6+6 = 12 rooms. Since there was dispute with regard to charging of electricity, the Manager (Commercial) of Tourism Department vide communication dated 28.08.2018 had informed the Deputy Executive Engineer that as per the Home Stay Policy, such electric consumption has to be charged as per domestic rates. 7. Since there was dispute with regard to charging of electricity, the Manager (Commercial) of Tourism Department vide communication dated 28.08.2018 had informed the Deputy Executive Engineer that as per the Home Stay Policy, such electric consumption has to be charged as per domestic rates. 7. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the policy of the State Government of Department of Tourism Industries and Mines which was introduced with regard to incentives granted for Registration of Home Stay Establishment, on 20.11.2014, more particularly clause 12. The same reads as under. “12. The Home stay Establishment get shall benefits as under: (1) Home stay Establishment shall be exempt from Luxury Tax and Value Added Tax. (2) Domestic rates for electricity would be charged from the registered Home stay Establishment. (3) Domestic rates of municipal property tax and water tax Would be charged from the registered Home stay Establishment. (4) Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited shall give one time short training as well as marketing guidance and support in general.” 8. As per the said policy, the registered Home Stay Establishment are entitled to the benefits of domestic rates of electricity. It is not in dispute that as per the clause 5 of sub-clause (2 of the said policy, the owner shall let out not less than one room and not more than six rooms to paying guest consisting of twelve beds in all. The said condition of clause 5 reads thus :- “5. It is not in dispute that as per the clause 5 of sub-clause (2 of the said policy, the owner shall let out not less than one room and not more than six rooms to paying guest consisting of twelve beds in all. The said condition of clause 5 reads thus :- “5. General condition of registration The accommodation of the Residential premises to be registered under this scheme as Homestay Establishment shall confirm to the following conditions, namely:- (1) That the residential premises are purely residential units and the owner is physically residing therein along with his or her family; (2) That the owner shall let out not less than one room and not more than six rooms to paying guest consisting of twelve beds in all; (3) That the bedroom has an adequate numbers of bathrooms and adequate arrangement for water, power supply, proper ventilation and lighting, suitable furniture, sanitation facility and other facilities ; (4) That the premises are in a good state of maintenance and have the required standards of hygiene, cleanliness and safety including fire safety; (5) That the premises are having adequate parking facility either within the same premises or in the vicinity; (6) That the premises should be located in an area easily accessible. (7) The premises should be good residential properties in good locations where tourists can comfortably stay. (8) That the premises have been considered by a classification committee for registration as an establishment as Silver or Gold category; and (9) Any other condition which the Industries & Mines Department, may impose, from time to time shall be applicable. 9. As per the documents on record and the approval orders, it is established that the respondent No.1 along with another person have been granted permission for 12 rooms. As on today, such permission has not been revoked and the respondent No.1 is continuing with her home stay, as per the Home Stay Policy of the State of Gujarat. 10. The petitioner-Company has not approached the Department of Tourism by pointing any violation by the respondent No.1 with regard to the Home Stay Policy. Despite the aforesaid communication dated 28.08.2018 written by the Manager (Commercial) of the Tourism Department pointing out the Clause 12(2), the petitioner-Company had raised supplementary bill of commercial rates. 10. The petitioner-Company has not approached the Department of Tourism by pointing any violation by the respondent No.1 with regard to the Home Stay Policy. Despite the aforesaid communication dated 28.08.2018 written by the Manager (Commercial) of the Tourism Department pointing out the Clause 12(2), the petitioner-Company had raised supplementary bill of commercial rates. Thus, the action of the petitioner-Company runs contrary to the policy of the State Government, hence, no illegality or perversity is found by this Court in the order dated 23.06.2020 allowing the Appeal No.05 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.1. 11. The writ petition fails and stands rejected accordingly. Rule is discharged.