2026 Supreme(Jhk) 591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited – Appellant 
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation – Respondent 
W.P.(C) No. 3578 of 2022
Decided on : 04-05-2026

The assessment for unauthorized use of electricity mandatorily requires an objective inspection report prepared by an authorized officer. In the absence of such a report, the assessment is void as the proceedings cannot be sustained based merely on subjective assertions or criminal complaints in a vacuum.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 126 and 135 - Unauthorized use of electricity - Assessment of charges - Mandatory requirement for inspection report - Assessment under Section 126 must be based on objective foundational evidence recorded in an inspection report prepared by the authorized officer - Absence of such report renders the assessment void as it constitutes acting in a vacuum without a recordable basis. (Paras 51, 56, 67, 80)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Rule of policy, convenience, and discretion - Availability of alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to maintainability when there is a violation of principles of natural justice and excess of jurisdiction - Persistent long-pending disputes warranting court intervention to prevent palpable injustice. (Paras 46, 48, 77)

(C) Tariff components - Assessment - Imposition of fuel surcharge and demand charges - Not permissible where these components have been omitted from the approved tariff structure and the applicable supply code regulation - Such inclusion constitutes an act beyond jurisdiction and unjust enrichment. (Paras 74, 76)

Facts of the case:
A consumer, engaged in industrial activity, challenged an assessment order for unauthorized electricity use. The supplier disconnected the supply and issued a demand for penalties, including energy charges, demand charges, and fuel surcharges. The consumer contended that no formal inspection report was prepared in compliance with mandatory regulations, rendering the assessment procedurally flawed and without jurisdiction. The supplier maintained that the existence of an alternative appellate remedy and an FIR regarding the incident justified the disconnection and assessment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the assessing authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of preparing a formal inspection report as stipulated in the regulations. It further identified that the inclusion of demand charges and fuel surcharges was unsupported by the applicable tariff orders. The court noted that in cases of protracted litigation where pleadings are exchanged, relegating the consumer to an alternative forum would result in injustice.

Issues: The main issues were whether a writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, whether a formal inspection report is a mandatory prerequisite for assessment under the relevant electricity law, and if demand and fuel charges can be included in the assessment for unauthorized use.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the statutory requirement to conduct an inspection and prepare an inspection report is a foundational step for any assessment under the Act. An FIR cannot serve as a substitute for this mandatory document. Therefore, an assessment passed in the absence of a proper inspection report amounts to an exercise of power without jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration with specific directions to refrain from imposing arbitrary charges.