Gauhati High Court Upholds Electricity Assessment Over Tampered Meter

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court, in a recent intra-court appeal, affirmed the dismissal of a writ petition challenging an electricity assessment bill issued to an industrial consumer following the detection of meter tampering. A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair , found no perversity in the findings of the assessing officer, the appellate authority, or the single judge, which concluded that the consumer had indulged in unauthorized use of electricity through a tampered meter.

The judgment, delivered on March 26, 2025, in WA/186/2019 (M/S. SHREE SHYAM ISPAT vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 2 ORS.) , centered on the interpretation and application of Section 126 and Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning unauthorized use of electricity and the appellate process.

Case Background

The appellant, M/s. Shree Shyam Ispat, a partnership firm manufacturing iron ingots, was supplied electricity by the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL). An abnormal transmission loss from the Chattabari 33 KV Sub-Station prompted APDCL authorities to investigate. An anomaly in the appellant's consumption led to an inspection on January 8, 2014, at their factory.

The initial inspection report noted tampered paper seals and a crack on the meter cover but recorded that the meter's error percentage was within limits on testing. Despite the latter finding, APDCL issued a notice alleging malpractice. An initial assessment bill was issued under Section 135 (theft), but this was later corrected by higher authorities to be assessed under Section 126 (unauthorized use) at twice the applicable tariff, leading to a final assessment bill of Rs. 10,124,878.75.

The appellant challenged this assessment before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Act. During the appeal, the appellate authority directed a thorough technical inspection of the meters by experts from the manufacturer (Secure Meters Ltd.) in the presence of the appellant's representative. This inspection, conducted on May 23, 2014, involved opening the meter covers and photographing internal components. The manufacturer later opined that the meters showed evidence of tampering, specifically mentioning that original Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) had been replaced.

Based on the demand curve analysis showing abnormally low consumption (350 KVA against 2800 KVA demand) and the manufacturer's report confirming a foreign circuit/replaced PCBs, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, upholding the assessment.

The appellant then filed a writ petition (WP(c)4798/2014) before the single judge, who dismissed the plea on June 4, 2019, upholding the findings of fact regarding tampering and noting that such technical matters were not appropriate for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially in the absence of glaring irregularity or perversity.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions: Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the initial inspection report found the meter error within limits, suggesting no tampering or unauthorized use. He contended that the assessment under Section 126 was impermissible without material demonstrating unauthorized use. The notice was defective as an enclosed statement (Annexure-1) was not provided. He also argued that the initial invocation of Section 135 vitiated the entire process, as no criminal proceedings were initiated as required by that section. A significant point of challenge was that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directing further technical testing and considering the manufacturer's opinion, which the appellant alleged was obtained behind their back.

Respondent's Submissions: Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the initial reference to Section 135 was an error, promptly corrected to Section 126, and all subsequent proceedings followed the correct procedure under Section 126. He emphasized that "unauthorized use" under Section 126 includes usage through a tampered meter. He contended that the appellate authority's direction for technical testing was for better appreciation of the facts and was conducted in the presence of the appellant's representative, who signed the minutes without objection. The manufacturer's report confirming replacement of original PCBs constituted conclusive evidence of tampering. He also highlighted that consumption significantly increased and transmission losses decreased after the meters were changed following the inspection, supporting the tampering finding. The writ court's certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and does not permit re-appreciation of technical or disputed facts, especially when no perversity or jurisdictional error is shown.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The Division Bench meticulously examined the sequence of events and the legal arguments. The Court dismissed the appellant's contention regarding the initial inspection report, stating that it contained only preliminary observations and further examination of the meters was necessary. The argument about not receiving Annexure-1 was also rejected, as the records indicated no such statement existed, and the documents relied upon were already with the appellant. The Court held that the initial erroneous reference to Section 135 was corrected, and the subsequent assessment proceedings correctly followed Section 126.

Crucially, the Bench found that the appellant's representative participated in the appeal proceedings, including the direction for technical testing on May 19, 2014, and the actual testing on May 23, 2014, signing the minutes without objection. The Court noted that the appellant only raised an objection to the testing procedure and the manufacturer's opinion after the adverse opinion came on record, terming this objection an "afterthought".

The Court held that the appellate authority's conclusion of tampering, based on the demand curve discrepancy and the manufacturer's report of foreign circuits/replaced PCBs, was based on materials properly brought on record. Tampering, as defined under Section 126 Explanation, constitutes unauthorized use of electricity, thereby justifying the assessment.

Referring to the scope of judicial review in intra-court appeals, the Bench cited the Supreme Court decision in Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025 SCC Online SC 232) , which holds that a learned Single Judge's finding of fact should not be disturbed in an intra-court appeal unless found to be perverse. The Division Bench found the Single Judge's conclusions, which upheld the appellate authority's findings and noted the technical nature of the dispute and the limitations of writ jurisdiction, to be plausible and not perverse.

Accordingly, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal, upholding the final assessment bill and the orders of the appellate authority and the learned single judge.

This judgment reinforces the position that evidence of meter tampering constitutes "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126, even if initial preliminary tests show error within limits. It also underscores the High Court's reluctance to interfere with factual findings and technical assessments made by expert regulatory authorities within their jurisdiction, particularly when procedural fairness has been largely observed and the findings are not demonstrably perverse.