Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Devan M. Desai dismissed an appeal by the electricity utility and upheld the trial court’s decree setting aside theft-related bills, holding that recovery for alleged power theft could not rest on a mere possibility of meter tampering. The dispute arose after the electricity supplier issued an initial bill and later a substantially enhanced revised bill to an industrial consumer following laboratory testing of an electric meter. The consumer had sought cancellation of both bills and protection against disconnection of supply. The High Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the supplier failed to establish dishonest abstraction of electricity or justify the revised demand, and affirmed the direction to refund the deposited amount with interest.

The dispute arose after the electricity authority supplied power to the plaintiff’s factory and a checking squad inspected the premises on 10.03.1995. The inspection report recorded no illegality, irregularity, or tampering in the meter, but the meter was sent for laboratory testing. The laboratory report noted foreign material near the meter gap and glass and stated that a plastic strip could be inserted through the gap. On that basis, the authority treated the matter as theft of energy, disconnected supply, and issued a recovery bill of Rs. 2,17,857.58. During the suit, it cancelled that bill and issued a revised/supplementary bill of Rs. 10,07,976.80, after which the plaint was amended to seek cancellation of the supplementary bill as well.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026

In appeal, the electricity authority argued that the consumer had dishonestly abstracted energy, invoked Section 33B of the Indian Electricity Act and the concept of theft under the IPC, and relied on the laboratory report and deposition of a checking-squad witness. The consumer contended that the theft allegation rested on assumptions, pointed to the absence of tampering in the initial checking report, questioned the unexplained supplementary bill, and argued that no witness was examined to prove the laboratory report.

The Court recorded, “It is an undisputed fact which culls out from the record that the defendants have supplied electric connection to plaintiff and checking squad visited plaintiff’s factory on 10.03.1995 and on inspection, no illegality or irregularity was found, however, for further checking of the meter, the meter was sent to laboratory.”

Referring to the supplementary bill, the Court observed, “However, this explanation is missing in the written statement as well as in the oral deposition of the witness whose evidence is recorded at Exhibit – 81 and 86.” It further stated, “The defendants have not been able to establish by any evidence; oral or documentary, so as to explain the mistake which is in the calculation of load factor.”

On the allegation of dishonest abstraction of energy, the Court stated, “Such positive assertion has to be proved by the defendants and not negatively proved by the plaintiffs.” It further recorded, “The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs have been indulged into usage of electric energy dishonestly.”

Regarding the laboratory report, the Court observed, “The laboratory report (Exhibit – 54), except finding that a plastic strip can be inserted in the gap between meter cover and glass, nothing else has been recorded.” The Court also noted, “The defendants have also not examined the person who had conducted testing of the meter and prepared a report, Exhibit – 54.”

The Court further recorded, “Only on report that a plastic strip can be inserted in the gap between meter cover and glass is not sufficient to establish that consumer was involved in the activity of theft of electric energy.” It also noted, “Supplementary bill was issued pending suit without any explanation and the reason which has been canvassed by learned advocate for the appellants is also not a justifiable explanation on the part of the appellants.”

Finally, the Court stated, “Considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff has been able to establish its case and, therefore, decreed the suit.”

Also Read: Physically Challenged Workers Deputed To Civil Hospital Through NGO And Paid Commission Cannot Claim Regularisation Or Government Servant Status: Gujarat High Court

The Court directed, “the appeal stands dismissed. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are in peculiar set of facts and may not be taken as precedent.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. P. M. Lakhani, Advocate; Mrs. R. P. Lakhani, Advocate

Case Title: Executive Engineer G.E.B. (Now Pashchim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd) & Ors. v. Mulraj Ice Factory, Proprietor Hariharprasad Zaverilal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:12336
Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 1673 of 1996
Bench: Justice Devan M. Desai