IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between unauthorized use of electricity and theft of electricity, the power of authorities to make provisional and final assessments, and the consumer's remedy to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

ORDER :

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the interim order dated 23.1.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in granting relief to the petitioner to the extent of deposit of 50% of the demanded amount within the time period mentioned therein and liberty to apply for fresh connection. Besides that, the learned Single Judge has further directed the appellant company to process the application filed by the petitioner, if any, on deposit of the required amount and provide connection within a period of two weeks. It is further directed that the respondent company shall not delay or reject the application of the petitioner for fresh connection only on the ground that there are arrears standing on the premises in question where the connection is sought.

3. Challenging this interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant company that though the order impugned is an interim order, but it amounts to grant of final relief in the shape of providing fresh electricity connection to the petitioner only on deposit of 50% of the amount computed towards the civil liability imposed upon the petitioner in the matter of theft of electricity. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is pointed out that the original petitioner who was having LTMD Type electricity connection, had indulged in the theft of electricity by taking the electricity connection directly from the electric pole. A criminal complaint has, thus, been registered and an FIR has been lodged in the concerned police station. The theft of electricity was detected during the checking/patrolling in the concerned area. An electricity bill of Rs.78,82,179.69 with compounding charges of Rs.9,00,808/-, with total amount of Rs.87,82,987.69 has been raised against the petitioner.

4. The contention in the writ petition has been placed before us to assert that the only ground to challenge the electricity bill on the ground of theft taken in the writ petition was that there is no legal material with the investigating agency to establish the involvement of the petitioner in connection with the electricity offence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that rebutting the assertion made in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant on 20.10.2023, to which no rejoinder in reply has been filed by the petitioner. The stand of the appellant in the counter affidavit has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge while passing the blanket order for grant of fresh electricity connection on the deposit of 50% amount towards the supplementary bill.

5. It is submitted that it is a case of theft of electricity directly from the electricity pole and without successfully challenging the complaint filed by the appellant, no interim relief could have been granted.

6. The disconnection of electricity has been made in terms of Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Act’) and restoration is guided by third proviso to subjection (1A) of Section 135 of the Act, which provides that the electricity connection can be restored only on the deposit of the assessed amount or electricity charges by the assessee.

7. It may be noted that the writ petition challenging the Supplementary Bill dated 01.06.2023 issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been allowed by the impugned interim order dated 23.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, simply relying on the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1445 of 2023 connected with another decided on 14.12.2023.

8. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that this indulgence granted to the petitioner is without taking note of the stand of the appellant in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge.

9. Coming to the claim of the petitioner befo