The High Court cannot adjudicate on writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, especially when jurisdiction is conferred on Special Courts under the Electricity Act, 2003.

ORDER :

CM APPL. 59/2025

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 23/2025 

3. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner challenging the alleged excess bill for Rs.13,56,198/- issued by BSES YPL/Respondents in respect of Enforcement of CAW No. 401660111 dated 20.09.2024. Petitioner also claims compensation and litigation expenses as well as a direction to the Respondents to reconnect the electricity connection which was disconnected on 15.11.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents on advance copy of the writ petition, on instructions, submits that the electricity of the premises in question bearing No. D-116, Gali No. 5, Kamal Vihar, Delhi- 110094 has been disconnected as there are outstanding dues payable by the Petitioner in the sum of Rs.13,56,198/- and as the bill reflects Petitioner has indulged in meter tampering leading to fraudulent and dishonest abstraction of energy. Learned counsel raises an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that only the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘2003 Act’) is vested with the power under Section 154 of the 2003 Act to try offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the said Act and to support this plea, relies on an order of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, W.P. (C) 6026/2007, decided on 09.09.2016 as also orders in Kishan Singh Shokeen v. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd., W.P. (C) 9215/2007, decided on 01.07.2024 and Muhimuddin Muhi v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., W.P. (C) 4387/2023 , decided on 11.12.2024.

5. Petitioner who appears in person, disputes the allegations of theft and dishonest abstraction of energy. He submits that it was the agent of Respondent No. 2 who had on 16.04.2024 noticed that there was some technical fault in the electricity meter of the Petitioner and had broken the seal to examine the meter, on an assurance that a new seal will be placed soon. However, the needful was not done for a long time and instead a show cause notice was issued on 27.08.2024, levelling false allegations of dishonest abstraction of energy. Petitioner attended the personal hearing on 02.09.2024 and also gave a written reply dated 04.09.2024 pointing out that the seal was broken by the team of BSES YPL and he had not tampered with the meter. Without paying heed to the issues raised by the Petitioner, the impugned bill was generated seeking an exorbitant amount of Rs.13,56,198/- and electricity was disconnected and thus, the impugned demand be quashed and electricity of the premises in question be restored. On the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition, Petitioner does not have much to argue.

6. Heard the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.

7. There is merit in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondents. There can be no dispute that jurisdiction conferred on Constitutional Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an inviolable part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the High Courts have wide powers. It is, however, equally settled that the High Court should not exercise the extraordinary power in writ proceedings where disputed questions of fact are involved and in this context, I may allude to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam and Others, (2021) 20 SCC 454. In my view, a greater restraint is required when jurisdiction is conferred by Statutes on Special Courts.

8. As per the Respondents, Petitioner has allegedly tampered with the meter and indulged in fraudulent and dishonest abstraction of energy, an allegation seriously refuted by the Petitioner, who in turn blames the Respondents for having broken the seal for examination of the allegedly faulty meter. In a nutshell, the matter relates to alleged dishonest abstraction/theft of electricity by the Petitioner. In As