JUDGMENT : 1. This petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, has been filed by the Electricity Company challenging the order dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority and the Electrical Inspector, Surat in Appeal No. 11-2009-10. 2. Facts in brief would indicate that on 08.04.2009, the connection of the respondent no.1 was checked in his presence and it was found that between RI & BI phase main door copper link was provided from inside as shown in the checking sheet. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a serious irregularity amounting to theft of electricity. The checking sheet was signed by the consumer. On 09.04.2009, a provisional bill was issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On 16.04.2009, the respondent no. 1 filed objections in the provisional bill. It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.05.2009, the meter was sent for laboratory inspection and the laboratory report specifically mentioned that on terminal block back side, a phase copper link was inserted and the meter has been bypassed. This laboratory report therefore would categorically come to suggest that the respondent no. 1 had indulged in theft of electricity. The respondent no. 1 approached the consumer forum who by order dated 18.07.2009 directed the electricity company to issue a fresh bill. Accordingly a fresh provisional bill was issued on 17.08.2009. In this provisional bill too the petitioner raised objections on 25.08.2009. The final bill was issued of Rs.4,25,950.99. It was a subject matter of challenge before the Electrical Inspector and the appeal has been allowed. 3. This order is assailed by the petitioner – electricity company through the submissions of Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner which are as under: (a) This is a clear case of theft of electricity as can be seen from the checking sheet wherein it was found that from inside a copper link had been inserted thereby tampering with the meter wiring. The final bill on 07.12.2009 was a bill therefore to be considered as one issued in a case falling under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and not Section 126. The final bill on 07.12.2009 was a bill therefore to be considered as one issued in a case falling under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and not Section 126. (b) The Electrical Inspector has by treating the case under Section 126 made an inadvertent mistake and assumed jurisdiction though the modus operandi as per the laboratory report and the checking sheet suggested unauthorized use of electricity which was however a dishonest intention and fell squarely under Section 135 of the Act. Once it was not a case under Section 126 of the Act, the finding of the appellate authority that the final bill not having issued within 30 days was an incorrect finding. (c) It was specifically a case of theft of electricity and therefore the Electrical Inspector had no authority to entertain the appeal when the bill was issued under Section 135 of the Act and merely because though evidently theft is written on the bill it cannot be treated under Section 126 of the Act. (d) This is a case where a permanent arrangement was made to see that correct consumption is not recorded in the meter while providing link between RI and BI phase. The bill having been quashed as not being issued within the stipulated time of 30 days as provided under Section 126 is a finding without authority of law and the Electrical Inspector has travelled beyond jurisdiction when it was not a case of unauthorized use of electricity but a case of tampering with the meter falling under Section 135 of the Act. 3.1 In support of her submissions, Ms. Bhaya would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer and Another vs. M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill [AIR 2012 SC (Civil) 489] to suggest that the Electrical Inspector failed to appreciate the distinctions between Sections 126 and 135 of the Act. She would rely on paragraphs no. 15 to 17 of the decision. Also a decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 18064 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 20522 of 2006 dated 07.09.2016 has been relied upon by Ms. Bhaya. 4. Mr. Vatsal Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Yogesh Dev, learned counsel for the respondent would support the order based on the appreciation made by the appellate authority on the dates so suggested. Bhaya. 4. Mr. Vatsal Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Yogesh Dev, learned counsel for the respondent would support the order based on the appreciation made by the appellate authority on the dates so suggested. He would submit that no fault can be found with the order of the appellate authority. He would rely on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and submit that having once approached the consumer forum and merely because of he having signed the checking sheet does not make the respondent no. 1 admitting the fact that there was theft of electricity. All throughout as is evident from the checking sheet and the bills issued by the petitioner company, it was the company’s case that the issue of bills was by invoking Section 126 of the Act. 5. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP appearing for respondent no. 2 – appellate authority would submit that the appellate authority has given sound and cogent for entertaining and allowing the appeal of respondent no. 1 and therefore no fault can be found with the order impugned. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the checking sheet issued by the authority and also an original copy of the checking sheet having been tendered, it is clear that it was the case of the petitioner – electricity company that a foreign body was inserted in the meter and as per the checking sheet it was a case of theft. Even the laboratory report dated 19.05.2009 indicates that it was an arrangement which was made to bypass electricity and a theft of electricity was made. However, what is evident from the assessment bills including that of final assessment made by the electricity company, it was a case according to the company that the bills were issued for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act. 6.1 At this point, therefore, what is evident is that despite a contention being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a theft under Section 135 of the Act, the company itself had issued bills and had defended their case by projecting it to be a case of unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act. Having done so, it is now improper for the petitioner company to resile from its stand and contend that based on the checking sheet and the laboratory report, the Electrical Inspector had no authority to entertain the appeal under Section 126 of the Act. The bills issued under Section 126 of the Act clearly provide that the case of the petitioner company itself was that the assessment was for unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Act. 7. It is in the background of these undisputed facts that emerge, the dates would become relevant. It was on 08.04.2009 that the inspection was carried out. The first provisional bill was issued on 09.04.2009 to which the petitioner raised objections. A laboratory inspection was carried out on 19.05.2009. The petitioner approached the consumer forum which passed an order on 18.07.2009. This prompted the electricity company to issue a fresh provisional bill on 17.08.2009. Merely because a provisional bill was issued on 17.08.2009 it would not extend the time for handing out a final assessment on behalf of the electricity company. It is evident from the facts and the dates that though the bill was issued on 17.08.2009 and to which the petitioner had lodged objections immediately thereafter on 25.08.2009, the final bill was issued only four months thereafter on 07.12.2009. Evidently and admittedly this issuance of final bill was not within the period of 30 days as provided in Section 126 of the Act. No fault can be found in the appellate authority’s finding therefore that the bill having been issued in contravention of provisions of Section 126 of the Act ought to be interfered with and quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly even on account of the sole reason that the bill having been issued beyond a period of 30 days is sufficient enough to uphold the order of the Electrical Inspector because admittedly the bill was issued beyond a period of 30 days. 9. As far as the submission of Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) is concerned, there can be no dispute on this legal aspect of the case where, if a case were to fall under Section 135 of the Act the question of mens rea would be evident. 9. As far as the submission of Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) is concerned, there can be no dispute on this legal aspect of the case where, if a case were to fall under Section 135 of the Act the question of mens rea would be evident. Here is a case where the electricity company itself has invoked the provisions of Section 126 of the Act and issued a bill for unauthorized use of electricity and therefore it cannot be submitted by the company now that it was a case of theft under Section 135 when the authority itself had assessed the case under Section 126 of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the court has not gone into the aspect of non-payment of regular bills by respondent no. 1 pending the petition. No orders on the Civil Application and the same is disposed of accordingly.