Electricity theft supplementary bills cannot be issued without hearing on assessment period and computation.

The petitioner, trustee of Maulik Education and Charitable Trust, operated Brilliant School and held two electricity connections bearing Consumer Nos. 32102/02555/1 and 32102/04698/2.

Following an inspection/raid on 02 January 2026, the respondent electricity company alleged electricity theft, registered FIRs and initiated proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It simultaneously issued Supplementary Bill Nos. 245293 and 245299, both dated 02 January 2026, calculating unauthorised consumption for twelve months.

The petitioner challenged the bills on the ground that they were issued without a prior opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner confined the present proceedings to the legality of the supplementary bills, reserving other challenges for an appropriate forum.

Whether the electricity company could unilaterally issue supplementary bills for alleged theft of electricity without granting the consumer an opportunity of hearing beforehand.

Whether the consumer’s opportunity of hearing was required to extend to the computation of the supplementary liability, including the applicable period of alleged theft, or whether the assessment could automatically cover the maximum period of twelve months.

The Court applied Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 7.6.5 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Electricity Supply Code Regulations, under which an assessment for theft must be made for the actual period of theft or, where that cannot be established, the prescribed maximum period, subject to relevant evidence.

Sections 135, 154(5) and 154(6) of the Electricity Act distinguish the offence of theft from the determination of civil liability and make the initial assessment subject to the Special Court’s determination.

Relying on Jayshree Tolkies v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., LPA No. 616 of 2018, the Court held that a supplementary bill cannot be issued unilaterally without giving the consumer an opportunity to show that the theft period was shorter than twelve months.

It also relied on Dipakbhai Chandubhai Patel v. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., LPA No. 64 of 2024, which limited the hearing to disputes concerning the computation of consumption, application of the assessment formula and determination of the assessment period under the Electricity Supply Code, 2015, including Clauses 7.7 and 7.12 and Annexure IV.

The respondent admitted that no hearing had been afforded before issuing the supplementary bills.

Since twelve months was only the maximum permissible assessment period, rather than an automatically applicable period, the petitioner was entitled to produce material showing that the alleged unauthorised consumption, if established, lasted for a shorter period.

The Court treated this as a necessary procedural safeguard inherent in Regulation 7.6.5 and applicable to the computation of civil liability, without adjudicating the merits of the theft allegation or the pending criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the absence of a pre-assessment opportunity rendered the impugned bills procedurally unsustainable.

Supplementary Bill Nos. 245293 and 245299 dated 02 January 2026 were quashed and set aside.

The matters were remanded to the concerned authority to issue fresh supplementary bills after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering the material produced, particularly regarding the appropriate period and computation of liability.

All rights and contentions were kept open, and the petitioner was permitted to pursue other remedies before the appropriate forum.

Both petitions were allowed to that limited extent and Rule was made absolute.