The court reinforced that a writ petition is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the Electricity Act, emphasizing adherence to due process and natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 Soumen Sen, C.J.

₹

The appellant has deposited a sum of 10,00,000/-

without prejudice to his rights and contentions.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the Electricity Board that an adjudication has already taken place and that the grievance of the appellant that he was not heard, has been duly considered and a final order of assessment has been passed.

3. The issues raised in the writ petition as well as in the appeal can be urged before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act , 2003. When there exists an efficacious alternative remedy available in law, the writ Court shall not ordinarily exercise its jurisdiction in such matters unless there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The adjudication order having been passed after hearing the appellant, we do not find that this is one of those exceptional circumstances where the writ court would exercise its jurisdiction.

4. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. However, we direct the appellant to prefer an appeal within a period of four weeks with a further deposit ₹

of 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only). The appeal can be filed only if the amount is remitted within four weeks from today. Having regard to the fact that a sum ₹

of 10,00,000/- has already been deposited, the electricity shall not be disconnected till the disposal of the appeal. 6. In the event, the aforesaid direction is complied with, it shall be deemed to be compliance with Section

127(2) of the Electricity Act , 2003.

7. We make it clear that in the event the aforesaid conditions are not fulfilled, the Electricity Board shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

8. The writ appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-