JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD THROUGH ITS LAW OFFICER A K SRIVASTAV vs MS KHATU SHYAM UDYOG THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY SHREE SHAYAM SUNDER SHARMA AND ANR
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
----
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., having its corporate office
Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, through its Law Officer, A.K. Srivastav, son of
late R.K. Lal, resident of Gas Godown Road, P.O.-Namkum, P.S.
…… …. .... Petitioner(s)
Namkum, District-Ranchi
-- Versus --
1 .M/s Khatu Shyam Udyog, a proprietorship firm having its unit
at Village Kalsionurg, Lodha Suli, P.O. and PS. Chakulia, District-
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, through its proprietor namely,
Shree Shayam Sunder Sharma, son of not known to the
petitioner, resident at Naya Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Chakulia,
District- East Singhbhum
2 .The Senior Electrical Inspector (Appellate Authority) U/s 127
of the Electricity Act, Electrical Inspectorate, near Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi
…… ….. .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
Mrs.Lavanya Gadodia Mital, Advocate
Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate
- 1 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
Mr. Arya Vardhan Singh, Advocate
Ms. Divya Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Sourav K. Jha, Advocate
Ms. Ritika Tiwari, Advocate
----
20 /03.11.2026 Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner/Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. [JUVNL]
and Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent no.1.
2. Respondent no.2 is appellate authority and it appears
that respondent no.2 is not an answering party in this writ petition.
3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.12.2013
passed in Appeal No. 44/2012-13 by the Senior Electrical Inspector
under the Appellate jurisdiction of Section 127 of the Electricity Act,
2003 whereby Senior Electrical Inspector has allowed the appeal.
4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the officer of the petitioner-
JUVNL inspected the premises of the respondent no.1/ M/s Khatu
Shyam Udyog on 31.01.2012 and submitted an inspection report in
which it was found that the connected load of the Petitioner was
344 HP during inspection as against the sanctioned load of 105 HP.
The inspecting team further observed that blue color P.V.C. pipe
- 2 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
covering 3 core cable and L.T. Terminal of transformer vulnerable for
tapping and hooking which clearly exhibits the theft of energy as
contained in Annexure-1. He next submits that the inspection team
found the respondent no.1 to be involved in theft of electricity, so,
First Information Report was registered at Chakulia Police Station
under Section 135/138/139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as contained
in Annexure-2. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that the authorized officer after informing
the entire details and units consumed by the respondent No.1 made
due communication to the Petitioner and as such the provisional bill
of Rs. 51,06,041/- was served upon the respondent No.1 and
against the provisionally assessed amount of Rs. 51,06,041/- the
Respondent No. 1 approached this Hon'ble Court by filling a writ
petition being W.P.C. No. 731 of 2012 which has been disposed of
with direction upon Respondent No.1 to appear before the assessing
authority and file objection and raise all relevant points. By the said
order, further direction was made to deposits Rs.5 lacs in one go,
and in turn, the Petitioner was directed to restore the electricity
connection within two days thereafter. He next submits in view of
that, the electricity connection was made in the premises of the
respondent no.1 on 27.03.2012 as contained in Annexure-3. He
next submits that the respondent no.1 has approached the
authorities of the petitioner-Corporation and filed objection under
- 3 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and thereafter considering
the objections filed by the Respondent No. 1. the Electrical
Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur passed the final order of
assessment on 05.11.2012 which came to the tune of
Rs. 47,24,568/- as contained in Annexure-4. He next submits that,
however, the same was not complied and the respondent no.1 again
filed a writ petition being W.P.C. No. 7100 of 2012. He next submits
that finally the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated
03.01.2013 as contained in Annexure-5 directing the Respondent
No.1 to deposit Rs. 5 lacs over and above Rs.5 lacs deposited earlier
and further the direction was issued to furnish bank guarantee of
Rs. 15 lacs. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner-JUVNL submits that respondent no.1 had
filed an appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He
next submits that at that time, filing of the appeal itself was not
maintainable as the criminal case was pending against the
respondent no.1. He next submits that the appellate authority by
order dated 17.12.2013 directed the petitioner to issue fresh Bill and
modified the assessment order dated 05.01.2012 which is not in
accordance with the law. He next submits that now the respondent
no.1 has already been acquitted in the trial as in view of section 126
of the Electricity Act, 2003 will apply and in light of the provisions
made under the said section the Board/Nigam is competent to
- 4 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
assess the demand on respondent no.1. He also submits that once
under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the assessment or
punishment is held by the Special court empowers the Electricity
Act, 2003, then again section 126 formula to calculate will apply. He
next submits that this aspect of the matter is well settled in light of
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive
Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa
Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill
reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 wherein at paragraph nos.30, 62,
64 and 67 of the said judgment it is held as under:
“ 30. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between
the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on
the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other.
There is no commonality between them in law. They operate
in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been
vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of
assessment in cases of unauthorised use of electricity and
cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will
squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to
cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorised use of
electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions
of Section 135 of the 2003 Act.
62. The requirement of grant of licence itself
suggests that electricity is a controlled commodity and is to be
regulated by the regulatory authorities. If a person
unauthorisedly consumes electricity, then he can certainly be
dealt with in accordance with law and penalties may be
imposed upon him as contemplated under the contractual,
regulatory and statutory regime. The Orissa Electricity
Regulatory Commission, in exercise of its powers under
- 5 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
Sections 181(2)(t), (v), (w) and (x) read with Part VI of the
2003 Act, the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and all
other powers enabling it in that behalf, made the regulations
to govern distribution and supply of electricity and procedure
thereof such as system of billing, modality of payment, the
powers, functions and applications of the distribution
licensees, form for supply and/or suppliers and the rights and
obligations of the consumers. These were called “the Orissa
Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of
Supply) Code, 2004” (hereinafter referred to as “the
Conditions of Supply”) vide Notification dated 21-5-2004.
64. Minimum energy charges are to be levied with
reference to “contract demand” at the rate prescribed under
the terms and conditions. These clauses of the Agreement
clearly show that the charges for consumption of electricity
are directly relatable to the sanctioned/connected load and
also the load consumed at a given point of time if it is in
excess of the sanctioned/connected load. The respondent
could consume electricity up to 110 kVA but if the connected
load exceeded that higher limit, the category of the
respondent itself could stand changed from “medium industry”
to “large industry” which will be governed by a higher tariff.
67. On the cumulative reading of the terms and
conditions of supply, the contract executed between the
parties and the provisions of the 2003 Act, we have no
hesitation in holding that consumption of electricity in excess
of the sanctioned/connected load shall be an “unauthorised
use of electricity” in terms of Section 126 of the 2003 Act.
This, we also say for the reason that overdrawal of electricity
amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the contract
and the statutory conditions, besides such overdrawal being
prejudicial to the public at large, as it is likely to throw out of
gear the entire supply system, undermining its efficiency,
efficacy and even increasing voltage fluctuations.”
5. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the
- 6 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/JUVNL
submits that in light of this judgment, once the load is found to be
over-load by the authorities, the petitioner is entitled to assess. He
also submits that in absence of any agreement for sanction of load
under H.T. category, the enhanced energy load has been utilized by
the respondent no.1 and in view of that also, the order of the
appellate court is bad. On these grounds, he submits that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed.
6. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits that for
the alleged allegation, the FIR being Chakulia P.S. Case No.8 of
2012 was registered under section 135, 138 and 139 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 which has been tried by the empowered Special
court under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the respondent no.1 has
been acquitted by the judgment dated 19.11.2019 in G.R. Case
No.44 of 2012, corresponding to Chakulia P.S. Case No.8 of 2012. In
this background, he submits that once the respondent no.1 has
already been acquitted by the Special court under the said Act, sub
sections 5 and 6 of section 154 of the said Act will come into play.
By way of referring those two sub-sections of section 154 of the said
Act, Mr. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent no.1 submits that Special court is empowered to
determine the civil liability against the consumer relating to theft of
- 7 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
energy. He next submits in light of sub-section 5, what will be the
method of determination of the liability is also described. He next
submits that sub-section 6, provides as to how the amount has to
be deposited or refunded. He next submits that in light of the
provisions made under section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, once
the petitioner is acquitted, section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003
has got no role. He next submits that if the allegation of theft is not
there and only allegations are made of excess load, then only
section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, will apply. Mr. Mittal, the
learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1
further submits that so far as the case of Executive Engineer,
Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited
(SOUTHCO) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) is
concerned, in that case only section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003
was involved. Mr. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel further submits
that this aspect of the matter is further more clear in light of the
recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakshin
Gujarat VIJ Company Limited and Another v. Vaibhav Metal
Crusher along with Another [Civil Appeal arising out of
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8778 of 2025] in light of the
judgment dated 26.10.2026 reported in 2026 INSC 1157. He
refers to paragraph nos. 36 and 37 of the said judgment, which
reads as under:
- 8 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
36 . Thus, the legal position emerging from the aforesaid
discussion is that the benefit of the third proviso to sub section
(1A) of Section 135 qua restoration of the supply of electricity
disconnected under sub-section (1A) of Section 135, in the
absence of any specific provision in the Supply Code notified
under Section 181(2)(x) read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act, is
available on deposit or payment of the amount assessed in
accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act
read with the provisions of the Supply Code, as are applicable to
cases of unauthorized use of electricity. However, since an
appeal is considered as a continuation of the original
proceeding, the amount so assessed under Section 126 is
subject to the order in an appeal under Section 127. In
consequence, the assessed amount determined in the appeal, if
any, is final for the limited purpose of seeking restoration of the
supply of electricity as contemplated under the third proviso to
sub section (1A) of Section 135. However, in cases of theft
where a criminal complaint is filed, the determination under
Sections 126 and 127, though final for the purpose of seeking
restoration of the supply of electricity under the third proviso to
sub-section (1A) of Section 135, is subject to the determination
of the civil liability by the Special Court under sub-section (5) of
Section 154 of the 2003 Act.
37 . In view of the discussion above, we summarize our
conclusions as under: (i) In cases of electricity theft, for seeking
restoration of the supply of electricity disconnected under
sub section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act, the ‘assessed
amount’ required to be deposited or paid under the third
proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 135 by the person
concerned, in the absence of any specific procedure prescribed
under the Supply Code notified under Section 181(2)(x) read
with Section 50 of the 2003 Act, is to be determined by
adopting the same procedure as is for assessing the electricity
charges payable by a person benefiting by the unauthorized use
of electricity. (ii) The amount so assessed is subject to the
- 9 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
determination in an appeal, if any, filed under Section 127 of
the 2003 Act. However, in cases of theft, the determination by
the appellate authority is final for the limited purpose of seeking
restoration of the supply of electricity in terms of the third
proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act.
Importantly, where a criminal complaint is filed, such
determination is not binding on the Special Court which is
empowered to determine the civil liability of the person
concerned under sub-section (5) of Section 154 of the 2003 Act.
(iii) If the amount assessed and deposited under the third
proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 135 exceeds the civil
liability determined by the Special Court under sub-section (5)
of Section 154, the excess amount is to be refunded in terms
envisaged under sub-section (6) of Section 154.”
7. Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Mittal, the learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits
that in light of the said judgment, it is crystal clear that sections 126
and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are meant only for calculation of
the amount for restoration of the electricity connection. He further
submits that respondent no.1, pursuant to order of this Court dated
03.01.2013 in light of the order dated 27.03.2012 passed in W.P.C.
No. 731 of 2012 has already deposited Rs.5 lacs and pursuant to
that, the restoration of electricity connection was made. He next
submits that for moving before the appellate authority, 50% of the
assessed amount was required to be deposited before the appellate
authority in terms of section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He next
submits that since the respondent no.1 was not in a position to
- 10 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
deposit the said amount, the respondent no.1 moved before this
Court in W.P.(C) No.7100 of 2012 which was disposed of by order
dated 03.01.2013 directing the respondent no.1 to deposit further
cash of Rs.5 lacs and furnish bank guarantee of Rs.15 lacs before
the appellate authority and thereafter the respondent no.1 further
deposited Rs.5 lacs. Mr. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits that in light of Annexure-8
dated 07.09.2011, the sanction was already made for enhancement
from 105 H.P. to 210 KVA from L.T.I.S to H.T.I.S. He also submits
that once the sanction was made and the Board/ Nigam has not
entered into the agreement, in view of that, the respondent no.1
has been compelled to file another writ petition before this Court
being W.P.(C) No.2307 of 2012, and pursuant to the direction of the
High Court, an agreement was entered into and security amount has
already been deposited by the respondent no.1 to the tune of
Rs.5,67,000/- and he submits that this fact has been stated by the
respondent no.1 in paragraph nos.25 and 26 of the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent no.1. He submits that in view of the sanction
and the agreement, there is no illegality in the order of the appellate
authority. He has argued to the extent that in light of acquittal in
criminal case, the respondent no.1 is entitled for refund of the
deposited amount and in the aforesaid background, Mr. Mittal, the
learned Senior counsel submits that in light of the acquittal, there is
- 11 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
no requirement of any further proceeding under sections 126 and
127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
8. In reply, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner/JUVNL submits that Annexure-
8 is the letter dated 07.09.2011 by which the respondent no.1 was
called upon to furnish certain documents for entering into an
agreement and according to him, there is no agreement till date. He
further reiterated his argument that even in the case of Dakshin
Gujarat VIJ Company Limited and Another v. Vaibhav Metal
Crusher along with Another (supra) relied by the learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, Section 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 is also relevant for assessment. On these
grounds, he submits further that the writ petition may kindly be
allowed. He also submits that this writ petition is filed by the
petitioner Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) and the
impugned order has not been challenged by the respondent no.1.
and as such, the prayer of refund made by the learned counsel for
the respondent no.1 is mis-conceived one.
9. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the
materials on record including the judgment relied by both the sides.
10. Admittedly, the inspection was made on 31.01.2012, and
thereafter, the FIR was drawn being Chakulia P.S. Case No.8 of 2012
- 12 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
registered under section 135, 138 and 139 of the Electricity Act,
2003. From the FIR, it is crystal clear that the said case has not
been registered under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
respondent no.1 has faced the trial and he has been acquitted by
the judgement dated 19.11.2019 in G.R. Case No.44 of 2012,
corresponding to Chakulia P.S. Case No.8 of 2012 and after
disconnection of the electricity, the petitioner has approached this
Court in W.P.C. No. 731 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order
dated 27.03.2012 and pursuant to deposition of Rs.5 lacs, the
electricity connection of the respondent no.1 was restored. The
respondent no.1 has not been able to file the appeal under section
127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in view of that, the respondent
no.1 has further approached this Court in W.P.C. No.7100 of 2012
which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2013 directing
the respondent no.1 to further deposit Rs.5 lacs and further Rs.15
lacs by way of bank guarantee for entertaining the appeal and
thereafter the respondent no.1 has further deposited Rs.5 lacs.
11. Annexure-8 is the letter dated 07.09.2011 whereby the
sanction was granted to convert the line from L.T.I to H.T.I,
however, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner/JUVNL has denied to enter into any agreement
which has been replied by Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 at paragraph
- 13 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
nos.25 and 26 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1
and the statement is made as under:
“25. That in reply to the submissions made in paragraph
17 of the writ petition, the answering respondent submits
that the same are an attempt by the petitioner to mislead
this Hon'ble Court and present the Respondent No. 1 in a
bad light. The truth of the matter is that on 01.08.2011, the
Respondent No. 1 applied for an HT connection of 210 KVA
before the Petitioner. Pursuant to the application made by
Respondent No. 1, the JUVNL authority being Electrical
Superintending Engineer vide letter no. 2288 dated
07.09.2011 sanctioned a load of 210 KVA to the
respondents.
After hearing both the parties in the writ petition
filed by the petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) i.e., WPC
No. 731 of 2012, vide order dated 27.03.2012, this Hon'ble
Court was pleased to restore the electrical connection on the
basis of payment of Rs. 5 lacs. Thereafter, upon deposit of
Rs. 5 lacs, the electrical connection of the respondent was
restored. After restoration of its electrical line, the
Respondent No. 1 once again approached the Petitioner to
execute the High-Tension agreement for supply of electricity
at 11 KVA, but the Petitioner did not respond to the
aggrieved respondents requests and kept sitting light over
the matter.
The apathetic and arbitrary approach and
attitude of the Petitioner is evident from the fact that the
aggrieved respondent had to resort to filing a writ petition
being WPC No. 2307 of 2012 on 24.04.2014 praying that the
Petitioner be directed to forthwith execute a High Tension
Agreement for 210 KVA on the basis of the load sanction
letter issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer vide
letter no. 2288 dated 07.09.2011, and in respect of which
- 14 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
Respondent No. 1 had already deposited a sum of Rs.
5,67,000/- as security money as far back as 22.11.2011. It
was only after the order of the Hon'ble High Court that the
High-Tension connection was given by the Petitioner.
26. That in reply to the submissions made in
paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the answering respondent
submits that the same are misconstrued submissions made
by the petitioner as is evident from the preceding paragraph
that the Respondent No. 1 had to resort to filing WPC No.
2307 of 2012 in order to get an HT agreement executed
Hence, there were no latches on the part of the respondent
in the delay of the execution of the HT agreement, which
finally took place on 25.05.2012 and the unit was energized
subsequently on 09.06.2012.”
12. In view of the above, statement made in the paragraph
no.17 it is crystal clear that the agreement was entered into for
conversion and security amount has already been deposited. Sub-
sections 5 and 6 of Section 154 of Electricity Act, 2003, stipulates as
under:
“ 154 . Procedure and power of Special Court .–
“ 1. ………
(5)The Special Court shall determine the civil
liability against a consumer or a person in terms of
money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an
amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate
applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the
date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of
theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of
civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were
a decree of civil court.
(6)In case the civil liability so determined finally by
the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by
- 15 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
the consumer or the person, the excess amount so
deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board
or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be,
shall be refunded by the Board orlicensee or the
concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight
from the date of communication of the order of the
Special Court together with interest at the prevailing
Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period
from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.
Explanation.– For the purposes of this section, “civil
liability” means loss or damage incurred by the Board or
licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be,
due to the commission of an offence referred to in
sections 135 to 140 and section 150.”
13. In light of the aforesaid two provisions, the Special Court
is empowered to determine the civil liability in terms of the money
for theft of energy. In the said sub-sections, how the calculation has
to be made, is also prescribed and sub-section-6 is made for
deposition and return of the determined amount by the Special
court. Thus, in a case of theft, the court which is in seisin with the
F.I.R determination, is empowered to opine in the form of civil
liability. The fact remains that the respondent no.1 has faced the
trial and respondent no.1 has been acquitted under section 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, stipulates how the calculation has to be
made in a case where over utilize of the energy is there in place of
sanctioned load. The case against the respondent no.1 is under
section 135, 138 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and this aspect
- 16 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
of the matter is crystal clear in light of the recent judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakshin Gujarat VIJ
Company Limited and Another v. Vaibhav Metal Crusher
along with Another(supra) on which reliance has been made by
the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
no.1. There is no doubt that in that judgment, it has also been
clarified that if disconnection of electricity under sub section 1(A) of
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is made, in light of its
proviso of Sub section 1(A) of Section 135 of the said Act, for the
purpose of assessment for restoration of the electricity connection,
the Supply Code Notification is required to be considered, and only
to that effect, clarification is made. However, the said judgment is
on the point of Section 126, and section 127 of the Act is very clear,
whereas, in that case, sub section 5 of Section 154 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, was also considered and, thereafter, the said judgment
has been passed. In the case relied by Mr. Sachin Kumar, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/JUVNL in the
case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply
Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another v. Sri
Seetaram Rice Mill (supra), only section 126 of the said Act was
under consideration. The clarity is also made and distinction has
been considered in paragraph no.30 of the said judgment, and in
that case, only the load aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble
- 17 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
Supreme Court, whereas, the case of the petitioner is otherwise,
and as such, the said judgment is not helping the petitioner/JUVNL.
14. Further, the Court finds from the averments made in the
writ petition, that the petitioner-herein/JUVNL itself has stated that
the appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not
maintainable, and the statement is made on the basis of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
M/s Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Co. v. J.S.E.B as contained in
Annexure-6 to the writ petition which is further contradictory to the
argument raised by Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner/J.U.V.N.L in support of the writ
petition and in para-21 of the said judgment, it has been held as
under:
“We find a difference between the procedure
prescribed to Section 126 and 135 of the Act. By
procedure prescribed under section 126, opportunities
are given to the consumers to contest the assessment
order which is provisional and when final assessment is
made then by preferring an appeal, such procedure is
not provided either under section (1A) of the Section
135 or under the relevant sub-clauses of clause 15.8.”
15. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court
- 18 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014
2026:JHHC:32184
finds that no case of interference is made out, and as such, this writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.5166 of 2014 is, hereby, dismissed.
16. The respondent no.1 has not challenged the impugned
order for refund of the amount, and in view of that, in the writ
petition filed by the petitioner/JUVNL, that relief cannot be allowed
to the respondent no.1.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 03.11.2026
SI/ A.F.R
Uploaded/06.11.2026
- 19 - W.P.(C) No. 5166 of 2014