IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 224 of 2006 SANJAY JAIN Versus M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri YPS Rathore- Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Narottam Sharma- Advocate for respondents.

Reserved on: 17.02.2026 Passed on: 24.02.2026 ORDER

1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India Seeks following reliefs:-

"(i) That the Annexure P/1 and P/2 provisional bill and order passed by Appellate Authority dated 26.10.2005 may kindly be quashed and respondent be directed first to check the load in the petitioner's establishment and then to decide the petitioner's objection as per law;

(ii) That the respondents be further directed to disconnect the supply over service connection No.364297;

(iii) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case looking to the nature of the petition may kindly be issued doing justice in the matter."

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is operating an industrial unit in the name of K.H. Food Products and is having electricity connection No. 364297 with a sanctioned load of 25 HP. A new meter was installed in the premises of the petitioner on 28-10-2004. A theft took place in the premises of the petitioner on 16-11-2004, wherein, apart from other tools, the electricity meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was also stolen and a complaint in the said record was made to the Station House Officer.

3. Surprise inspection in the premises of the petitioner was carried out on 18-11-2004 and finding the case of unauthorized use of electricity in the absence of any electricity meter being installed, a provisional demand of Rs. 1,81,453/- was issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as "Act of 2003"). The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said demand was rejected vide Annexure P/2. He submits that the provisional and final assessment of demand against the petitioner on the basis of average consumption of last six months by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal as, the petitioner has been continuously paying electricity bills for the past months. He submits that few days prior to the date of inspection, since the electricity meter was stolen from the premises of the petitioner, it cannot be said that there has been wilful and unauthorized use of electricity on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that for the same incident of offense of theft of electricity, a complaint case was filed by the respondents against the petitioner wherein, the petitioner was tried in Special Sessions Case No. 3 of 2005. However, the respondents failed to prove case of theft of electricity against the petitioner and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 14.7.2006. Once the allegation of theft of electricity has been found to be not proved against the petitioner by the Competent Court, provisional and final assessment or demand for the unauthorized use of electricity for the very same incident made by the respondents under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he submits that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order Annexures P/1 and P/2 deserve to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the return submits that the proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and Section 135 of the Electricity Act are not interlinked and are independent of each other, just because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, in the proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act of 2003, provisional and final assessment of demand made against the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 cannot be set at naught. He further submits that the stand taken by the p