Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laheri Salim Yusuf, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court challenging a letter dated 23.12.2025 and a supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 issued by the Deputy Engineer (Operations and Maintenance), Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Ankleshwar, for alleged theft of electricity amounting to Rs.54,04,788.24 at his 1080 R.O. Plant near Falaha Masjid, Ankleshwar. The petitioner also challenged the reply dated 03.02.2026 rejecting his written representation dated 17.01.2026. The petitioner contended that the impugned actions were in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of Sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, as no opportunity of hearing was provided before issuing the supplementary bill. The respondent, represented by Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, waived service of rule. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the impugned actions were indeed in violation of natural justice and the statutory provisions. The court quashed and set aside the impugned letter dated 23.12.2025, the supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025, and the reply dated 03.02.2026. The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2026 afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Natural Justice - The petitioner challenged a supplementary bill of Rs.54,04,788.24 for alleged theft of electricity and the respondent's reply rejecting his representation without affording a hearing. The court held that the impugned actions were in violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory scheme under Sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandate an opportunity of hearing before assessment. The court quashed the impugned letter and bill and directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation afresh after giving a hearing. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned supplementary bill for theft of electricity and the subsequent reply rejecting the petitioner's representation are in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of Sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 23.12.2025, supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025, and reply dated 03.02.2026 are quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2026 afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Section 135(2) and 135(3) of Electricity Act
- 2003
- Mandamus
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
