Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Any authority constituted by the statute and is deciding the dispute as per the provisions of the rules made thereunder is a quasi judicial authority and the decisions of the said quasi judicial authority is amenable to the writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227", Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is a statutory quasi-judicial body subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

A single-judge bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed this while dealing with a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a writ petition challenging a remand order passed by the authority in a dispute over unauthorized electricity usage.

The petitioner electricity company had inspected the premises of the respondent and found them using an electrical load exceeding their sanctioned limit. Following a final assessment order penalising the respondent for unauthorised use, an appeal was filed before the statutory Appellate Authority. The authority quashed the assessment and remanded the matter for fresh calculation limited to the actual period of unauthorised use, prompting the electricity company to approach the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court was also called upon to determine if a writ petition is maintainable against a purely remand order passed by the said authority.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Statutory Authorities

The court first addressed the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, who argued that the Appellate Authority does not fall within the definition of a subordinate court or tribunal, thereby excluding it from the scope of Article 227. Rejecting this contention, the bench examined the statutory framework under Section 127 of the Electricity Act read with the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004. The court concluded that an authority designated to decide disputes in a judicial manner in accordance with statutory provisions fundamentally acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.

"any authority constituted by the statute and is deciding the dispute as per the provisions of the rules made thereunder is a quasi judicial authority and the decisions of the said quasi judicial authority is amenable to the writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

Limits Of Article 227 Jurisdiction

While affirming its jurisdiction to hear the matter, the court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in the case of Jai Singh v. MCD. The bench reiterated that while the supervisory power under Article 227 is technically wider than the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, it must be exercised with immense care, caution, and circumspection. The court noted that this discretionary power is reserved for rectifying grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law, rather than substituting the conclusions of statutory tribunals.

"It can not be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction."

Writ Petitions Against Remand Orders

Turning to the merits of the electricity company's challenge against the remand order itself, the court observed that the petition could not be entertained. The bench noted that relegating the matter back to the Assessing Officer to determine the specific period of unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act did not adversely affect the petitioner company. The court emphasized that both parties would retain equal opportunities to present their material and evidence before the assessing authority.

"considering the fact that by remanding the matter to the assessing authority, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner as both the parties will have equal opportunity to submit their stand/defence before the assessing authority, this Court is of considered opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority is absolutely in consonance with section 126"

Scheme of Section 126 Clarified

The court also addressed the electricity company's argument that Section 126(5) mandates assessing the usage for the entire preceding year when the exact period of unauthorized use is unknown. The bench observed that the remand order merely granted a fair chance to both parties to clarify the actual period of unauthorized use. It was held that an order directing reassessment of the tariff by ascertaining the correct time frame is entirely consistent with the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act.

The High Court ultimately disposed of the batch of writ petitions, holding that while the writ was maintainable against the Appellate Authority, interference with the remand order was unwarranted. The court granted liberty to both parties to raise all questions regarding the unauthorized use and excess load before the Assessing Officer, directing that the dispute be decided within six months.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026