Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J
Gulpreet Kaur Bedi – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory – Respondent
CWP-38170-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Piyush Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Viraj Gandhi, Nitin Bhasin, Bharti Bhatia
A transferee entity under a statutory transfer scheme cannot exercise the power to initiate recovery or assessment proceedings for periods prior to the transfer date unless such authority is explicitly vested in the transferee by the scheme or applicable law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 and 227 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Held, writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy where the question of jurisdiction is involved or where the order is passed without authority of law. (Para 8 and 9)
(B) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 131 - Chandigarh Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2025 - Transfer of business to a Government Company - Whether the transferee company has the power to raise assessment demands for electricity consumed prior to the transfer date - Held, in the absence of an explicit provision in the transfer scheme empowering the transferee to initiate recovery proceedings for the period prior to the transfer date, such demand is without jurisdiction. (Para 16 and 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners held a non-residential electricity connection. The respondent inspected the premises and issued a demand of Rs. 14,77,823/- on 26.11.2025, claiming an incorrect multiplication factor was applied to their electricity consumption. The petitioners challenged this assessment, arguing the respondent-company lacked jurisdiction to issue demands for periods prior to the transfer date stipulated in the transfer scheme.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the transfer scheme did not explicitly authorize the newly formed company to raise demands for the pre-transfer period. The respondent’s argument regarding the transfer of liabilities was found misconceived as it pertained to the company's own contingent liabilities, not the assessment of consumer arrears.
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable and whether the respondent-company had the legal authority under the transfer scheme to raise demand/assessment for the period prior to the effective transfer date.
Ratio Decidendi: Absent specific inclusion in the transfer scheme or legislative saving provision for recovery proceedings for past periods, a transferee entity cannot exercise a power to assess and demand arrears that was not explicitly vested in it by the transferor administration.
Result: Petition allowed; Assessment order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition challenging an electricity assessment demand. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding jurisdiction and alternative remedies. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. establishment of writ maintainability due to jurisdictional challenge. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. interpretation of transfer scheme regarding authority to assess past arrears. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. application of legislative saving principles and final setting aside of assessment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of assessment order dated 10.12.2025 whereby respondent has rejected their objections and raised demand of Rs.14,77,823/-.
2. The petitioners are resident of Chandigarh. They are holding non-residential electricity connection. The respondent inspected their premises on 17.11.2025 and formed an opinion that correct multiplication factor was not applied while preparing bill. By mistake, multiplication factor of ‘20’ was applied whereas correct multiplication factor was ‘40’. The respondent on the basis of said opinion issued notice dated 26.11.2025 raising demand of Rs.14,77,823/-. In the title, the notice was treated as provisional assessment. The petitioners were asked to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioners filed objections and respondent vide order dated 10.12.2025 framed final assessment. The demand was confirmed alleging wrong application of multiplication factor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Chandigarh Power Distribution Limited (for short ‘CPDL’) came into existence w.e.f. 24.04.2022. The Company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. It was got incorporated by Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 31.01.2025 framed a scheme whereby assets and liabilities of the electricity wing of the Engineering Department were transferred to aforesaid Company. In the scheme, there was no provision which authorized respondent-Company to make assessment and raise demand prior to 31.01.2025 i.e. date of notification of the scheme. The scheme transferred assets, liabilities and employees of the Administration, however, there was no specific provision which empowered Company to raise demand for the period prior to 31.01.2025. The respondent has raised demand without jurisdiction, thus, writ petition is maintainable and may be entertained.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that impugned demand has not been raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act, (for short ‘2003 Act’). The demand has been raised on account of miscalculation. By mistake, multiplication factor of ‘20’ instead of ‘40’ was applied. The respondent has every right to correct its mistakes. The petitioners are liable to pay charges for electricity consumed. The petitioners have alternative remedy to approach Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. They may further approach Ombudsman constituted under Section 42(6) of 2003 Act. They have not challenged vires of Section 131 of 2003 Act or notification dated 31.01.2025, thus, in the wake of availability of alternative remedy, writ petition should not be entertained. In the notification dated 31.01.2025 expressions ‘assets’, ‘liabilities’, ‘past arrears’ and ‘proceedings’ have been defined. Part D of the notification provides that electricity distribution and retail supply undertaking including assets, liabilities and proceedings as set out in Schedule ‘B’ shall stand transferred to CPDL-respondents No.3 and 4. In the Schedule ‘B’, assets, proceeding and liabilities transferred to the company are underscored. As per Clause IV(e) of the Schedule ‘B’, proceedings which are exclusively or primarily associated with or related to distribution are transferred to respondent No.3.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The respo
