Penal charges and interest are not leviable on supplementary electricity bills absent proof of tampering.

On July 19, 2008, officers from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL) replaced the petitioner’s residential meter.

A checking sheet dated July 29, 2008, noted tampering in the MMB seals but confirmed that the body seals and other meter parts were intact

Despite the absence of body seal tampering, the respondent issued a notice for Rs. 1,24,793.16, followed by a supplementary bill of Rs. 1,16,417.93 for unauthorized use of electricity

The petitioner deposited 50% of the bill (Rs. 58,210) to prefer an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act

On February 27, 2009, the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to pay for 6388 units at double the rates

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, maintaining that no unauthorized use or theft occurred

1. Whether the assessment of unauthorized use of electricity and the subsequent supplementary bill at double rates were sustainable in the absence of evidence regarding meter tampering or theft under Section 135

2. Whether the petitioner is liable for penal charges and interest when the assessment was based solely on high unit consumption rather than established tampering

Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which governs the assessment of "unauthorized use of electricity," and Section 127, which provides the framework for appeals against such assessments

Section 135 of the Act, which pertains to the "theft of electricity"

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

The court observed that the respondents admitted there was no tampering found in the body seals of the meter

no case was registered against the petitioner for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Act

The court noted that the supplementary bill under Section 126 was issued solely because the petitioner's consumption units were high, rather than based on cogent evidence of unauthorized interference with the supply

Considering the petitioner’s status as a residential consumer with a clean prior record and his willingness to pay the remaining 50% of the principal supplementary bill, the court determined that the imposition of double rates, penal charges, and interest was not justified under the specific circumstances

The court held that while the petitioner must pay the remaining 50% of the supplementary bill, the respondents are prohibited from levying any penal charges or interest.

The petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount within eight weeks. The court clarified that this order was passed based on the unique facts of the case and should not be treated as a legal precedent for other matters.