IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Kausik Chanda W.P.A. No.1300 of 2025 JAMAL SEIKH -VERSUS-

THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS And W.P.A. No.10995 of 2025 LUTFAR RAHAMAN -VERSUS-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS And W.P.A. No.1289 of 2025 ABDUL RAJAK -VERSUS-

THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS For the petitioner : Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay Adv., (W.P.A. No.1300 of 2025)

Ms. Lipika Chatterjee, Adv., (W.P.A. No.1289 of 2025)

Mr. Soumik Dey, Adv., Mr. Saikat Pal, Adv.

For the petitioner : Mr. Anindya Ghosh, Adv., (W.P.A. No.10995 of 2025)

Mr. Pronojit Roy, Adv.

For WBSEDCL : Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv., (W.P.A. No.1300 of 2025)

Ms. Rituparna Maitra, Adv.

For WBSEDCL : Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv., (W.P.A. No.1289 of 2025)

Mr. Asif Dewan, Adv.

For WBSEDCL : Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, Adv.

(W.P.A. No.10995 of 2025)

Hearing concluded on : 16.06.2025 Judgment on : 23.07.2025 Kausik Chanda, J.:-

The question of law that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the period of thirty days, as provided under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, to pass a final order of assessment from the date of service of a provisional assessment, is mandatory. In other words, whether the assessing officer can pass a final order of assessment after expiry of thirty days from the date of service of the provisional order of assessment. The law point is required to be answered first, while the factual aspects involved in these cases shall be considered separately.

2. Learned advocates appearing for the licensee company argued that the issue is settled by two judgments of this Court. One is passed by a Single Bench in WP 2477 (W) of 2019 (Swapan Kumar Dey alias Das v. WBSEDCL) dated April 11, 2019, and another by a Division Bench passed in F.M.A. No. 121 of 2023 (The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. v. Tapan Sen Majumder) dated December 11, 2024. The licensee company argued that the aforesaid judgments have already answered the issue in favour of the licensee company.

3. Learned counsel for WBSEDCL relies on the decision in Swapan Kumar Dey (supra) to contend that where a provisional assessment bill is not challenged or objected to within the statutory period, it attains finality and becomes enforceable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners’

liability persists, despite the absence of a formal final order.

4. In the alternative, placing reliance on Tapan Sen Majumder (supra) it is submitted that the petitioners may be directed to face proceedings under Section 126 of the Act for finalisation of the provisional demand. In either case, it is contended, the petitioners cannot evade liability for unauthorised consumption.

5. The petitioners, however, contend that an assessing officer cannot complete the assessment after thirty days from the date of service of the provisional order of assessment.

6. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, reads:

“Section 126: (Assessment): -(1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.

(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub- section (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order o