High Court quashes Single Judge’s decision, restoring writ petition for adjudication on merits, clarifying the scope of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand has set aside a Single Judge’s order that dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S M.B. Enterprises. The appeal, L.P.A. No. 294 of 2015, challenged an inspection report alleging unauthorized use of electricity. The court, comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, underscored the distinction between excess electricity usage and unauthorized use, thereby reinstating the writ petition for further consideration.

The appellant, M/S M.B. Enterprises, operates a factory in Adityapur, Jamshedpur, with a Low-Tension electrical connection sanctioned by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The factory, initially sanctioned a load of 105 HP, was inspected on July 10, 2010, and found to have an installed load of 157 HP. The inspection led to a demand for Rs. 3,41,923/- based on the provisions of the Electricity Act. The appellant contended that no unauthorized electricity use occurred, arguing that the case fell outside the purview of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, which addresses unauthorized electricity use.

The court examined whether the inspection report could be categorized under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Section 126 pertains to unauthorized electricity use, which includes instances like tampered meters or usage beyond sanctioned areas. The court noted, “It is evident from the inspection report that the authorized officer has not found any device or disruption indicating unauthorized use of electricity.” The bench emphasized that merely exceeding the sanctioned load does not constitute unauthorized use under Section 126.

The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on grounds that the appellant should seek remedy through an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. However, the court clarified that Section 127 applies only when the assessment is made under Section 126, which was not the case here. “The unauthorized use of electricity, as per Section 126, includes specific categories, none of which apply to the appellant’s situation,” the bench remarked.

The judgment elaborated on the interpretation of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act. It highlighted that the scope of Section 126 is limited to specific instances of unauthorized electricity use, which were not evident in this case. The court observed, “The consumption exceeding the sanctioned load, billed on a demand basis, should be regularized as per Clause 15.7(iii) of the Supply Code, rather than being treated as unauthorized use.”

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad stated, “Merely on account of an inspection, it cannot be concluded that the usage falls under Section 126 without meeting the specific conditions outlined in the explanation of unauthorized use.”

The High Court’s ruling clarifies the scope of unauthorized electricity use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, emphasizing the importance of precise legal interpretation. By restoring the writ petition for adjudication on merits, the judgment provides clarity on handling cases of excess electricity usage and reaffirms the appropriate legal remedies. This decision is expected to influence future cases involving disputes over electricity consumption and unauthorized use allegations.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024

M/S M.B. Enterprises VS Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd