Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
M/S M.B. Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, (earlier known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board) & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 294 of 2015
Decided On : 26-06-2024
ELECTRICITY - Unauthorized Use of Electricity - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 126, 127 - The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which outline the assessment of unauthorized use of electricity and the appeal process against such assessments. It emphasized that Section 126 provides a framework for assessing unauthorized use, while Section 127 allows for appeals against such assessments. The court interpreted that the inspection report did not substantiate claims of unauthorized use as defined under Section 126, thus influencing its decision to quash the lower court's ruling and restore the writ petition for adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a firm with a factory in Jamshedpur, had a low-tension electrical connection from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB). After an inspection revealed an installed load of 157 HP against a sanctioned load of 105 HP, the JSEB issued a bill based on this excess load. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the bill, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on the grounds that an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was the appropriate remedy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inspection report did not indicate unauthorized use of electricity as defined under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It concluded that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition based solely on the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 127, as the conditions for unauthorized use were not met.
Issues: Whether the inspection report constituted evidence of unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and whether the writ petition was maintainable given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an appeal under Section 127 to be applicable, there must be a finding of unauthorized use of electricity as defined in Section 126. Since the inspection report did not substantiate such a finding, the dismissal of the writ petition was not justified.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the learned Single Judge, restored the writ petition for adjudication on its merits, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4087 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been held to be not maintainable on the ground of availability of appeal to be filed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The petitioner/appellant Firm is having its factory at Adityapur, Jamshedpur and is having a Low-Tension electrical connection granted by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The said factory took electricity connection from Jharkhand State Electricity Board under low tension industrial tariff having a sanctioned load of 105 HP.
The Electricity Board used to send bills to the petitioner/appellant from time to time in the relevant category of LTIS Tariff and the same has been all along paid.
Thereafter, the Energy Department of the Government of Jharkhand issued a notification under Section 78A of the Electricity Act, 2003 on 13.08.2002 Clause 4 of which deals with the concept of maximum demand load in respect of Low-Tension units. The said clause -4 was also in consonance with the provisions of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001.
In pursuance to the issuance of the notification under Section 78A by the Energy Department of the Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand State Electricity Board also issued a notification dated 29.08.2002 wherein Clause – 4 deals with the same issue. Thereafter, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board applied before the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission as a licensee for fixation of their tarrif, thus, Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission issued a tariff order which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Thereafter, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board issued the tariff, wherein clauses 5(a) and 5(b) were inserted in respect of Low Tension industrial categories.
Thereafter, in supersession of earlier tariff of year 2004, the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission approved another tariff schedule for the licensee Jharkhand State Electricity Board effective from 01.05.2010. In the said tariff of 2010, the petitioner/appellant falls under low tension industrial and medium power service (LTIS) category of consumer.
Further, the petitioner/appellant vide its letter dated 28.06.2010 wrote to the Assistant Electrical Engineer to raise bills from June, 2010 onwards on the basis of demand load tariff. But, the board has not responded to the letter of the petitioner/appellant.
After such application, an inspection was carried out in the premises of the petitioner/appellant on 10.07.2010 where the total installed load of the petitioner/appellant was determined to be 157 HP as against the sanctioned load of 105 HP. There was no allegation of any nature whatsoever regarding any theft or any manipulation in the petitioner’s premises, in fact, although it was a surprise inspection done by an anti-power team by Jharkhand State Electricity Board but no allegation of any nature was made.
Further, the petitioner/appellant received a letter No. 737 dated 22.07.2010 written by Electrical Executive Engineer, Adityapur, Jamshedpur stating therein that load in the petitioner’s premises was 157 HP against the sanctioned load of 105 HP and as such it was stated that the petitioner/appellant would be charged Rs. 3,41,923/- as per the provisions of Indian Electricity Act.
Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition being WPC No. 4087 of 2010 and after filing of the same, the petitioner/appellant received a bill for the month of July 2010 which was raised on the basis of load of 157 HP.
Further, in view of the Clause 4 of the Resolution dated 13.08.2002 issued by the Energy Department, State of Jharkhand, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to avail the benefi
The assessing officer must establish unauthorized use of electricity before issuing a final assessment order, which can be appealed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Unauthorized use of electricity requires actual consumption beyond contracted load; mere extension of load without use does not constitute violation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of the bill for unauthorized use was correctly done under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 56 of the Act d....
Electricity - Unauthorized use of electricity - Assessment of electricity charge contemplated in this section is immediately after disconnection but before lodging complaint and that too for the purp....
Excess electricity consumption constitutes unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which prevails over conflicting provisions in the Supply Code.
Unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 requires actual consumption beyond authorized load; mere extension of load without use does not qualify.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
