LAKSHMI NARAYAN SHAW AND ORS vs CESC LIMITED AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
W.P.A. No. 27580 of 2026
Lakshmi Narayan Shaw & Ors.
Vs.
CESC Limited & Anr.
Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder,
Mr. Indranil Halder,
Ms. Neha Singh
… for the Petitioners
Mr. Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray
… for the respondent CESC
Limited
Heard on: 25.09.2026, 29.09.2026, 05.10.2026.
Judgment on: 12.11.2026; Uploaded on: 12.11.2026
1. The moot question to be determined in the instant writ petition
is whether the third proviso to section 135 (1A) of the Electricity
Act 2003, shall have a mandatory and unavoidable manner of
application, in the instant case or not.

2. Let first the provision be quoted for benefit of discussion which
is as follows:
PART XIV OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
Section 135. (Theft of Electricity): ---
1[(1) Whoever, dishonestly, --

2

(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with
overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or
service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier
as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter,
current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other
device or method which interferes with accurate or proper
registration, calibration or metering of electric current or
otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen
or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus,
equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so
damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or
accurate metering of electricity,
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the
usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or
consume or use electricity shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
or with fine or with both:

(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the
licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon
detection of such theft of electricity, immediately
disconnect the supply of electricity:

Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may
be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or
electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this
Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the
complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this
clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-
eight hours of such deposit or payment.

3. Section 135 (1A) of the Act of 2003 is an enabling provision for
the authority to disconnect supply of electricity, upon detection
of theft, without prejudice to the other provisions under the said

3

Act. The statute lays down sufficient discretionary power upon
the licensee in matter of disconnection of electricity upon
detection of theft, by virtue of the said provision. The third
proviso thereafter put forth the condition as to when upon
detection of theft and pursuant to disconnection of electricity
due to the alleged theft by the consumer, the connection can be
restored by the supplier. It says that on deposit or payment of
the assessed amount or electricity charges by the consumer in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, the licensee shall,
without prejudice to its obligation to lodge the complaint as
referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the
supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit
or payment. The interpretation of section 135 (1A) of the said
Act read with the third proviso thereof is the relevant issue in
the instant writ petition.

4.
The factual background of the case in a nutshell is that, the
writ petitioner has been issued with the final order of
assessment dated 07.9.2026 by the respondent/CESC, of an
amount of Rs. 6,75,841/-. Allegation against the petitioner is of
over consumption, on account of theft of electricity. The
electrical line of the petitioner has been disconnected, on this
allegation, stating the same to be in accordance with the law.
Later, the licensee has issued the final order of assessment
against the writ petitioner, as stated above.

5. Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder, learned advocate for the writ petitioner
has submitted that the writ petitioner contemplates to challenge
the said final order of assessment dated 07.9.2026, issued
against him, in a statutory appeal. That, in the mean time the
petitioner desires his electricity connection to be restored. Mr.

4

Bidyut Kr. Halder, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has
relied on the following orders of this Court, to buttress his
argument that in an appropriate case, such restoration of
electricity may be allowed subject to payment by the writ
petitioner a part of the said assessed amount [as per the orders
of Court relied on by the petitioner, 50% of the finally assessed
amount] Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder, learned advocate has submitted
that the Court has directed for immediate restoration of
electricity connection subject to payment of 50% of the assessed
amount by the writ petitioner in those cases, which he relies on.
In the instant writ petition, he seeks similar order to be passed
by this Court.

6. The following orders of the Court have been relied on by Mr.
Bidyut Kr. Halder, learned advocate for the writ petitioner:

i. Order dated 18.4.2013 in MAT No. 553 of 2013;
ii. Order in Akhtar Hossain versus CESC & Others dated
30.11.2016 [MAT No. 1784 of 2016]; and
iii. Order in Smt. Sutapa Nath versus CESC Limited & Another
dated 28.9.2026 [WPA No. 26103 of 2026].

7.
To the submission and prayer of the petitioner as above,
vehement objection has been raised on behalf of the
respondent/CESC. Mr. Dr. Madhusuda Saha Ray learned
advocate for the said respondent has submitted that as per
ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh
Agarwal versus CESC Limited and Others [dated 05.5.2022, in
FMA No. 197 of 2022] , deposit of the entire of the finally
assessed amount is sine qua non , for reconnection of electricity
upon detection of theft and assessment of amount to be
deposited due to theft by the consumer.

5


8. He submits that sitting in judicial review there is very little or
no scope at all for this Court to apply any discretion in this
regard, beyond scope of the statutory mandate for the reason
that such discretion could only have been exercised in
situations where there were two or more legal options, which is
not the issue at hand. That the specific legal bar contained in
the statute should disable exercise of any such discretion which
may render outcome excepting that provided under the statute.
In this regard Mr. Dr. Madhusuda Saha Ray learned advocate
for the respondent has relied on a judgment of the Supreme
Court in Anurag Kumar Singh versus State of Uttarakhand &
Others [reported at AIR 2016 SC 4542] . Mr. Dr. Madhusuda
Saha Ray has further submitted that the petitioner’s intention
of filing any statutory appeal to challenge the said final order of
assessment is doubtful, since, in spite of lapse of the statutory
time limit, which is a mandatory time frame to follow to prefer
an appeal, no steps have yet been taken by the petitioner, for
filing any such appeal. As regards requirement of mandatory
observance of the statutory provisions under section 135 (1A) of
the Act of 2003, for payment of the assessed amount even by
instalments, for reconnection of electricity, Mr. Dr. Madhusuda
Saha Ray learned advocate for the respondent has also relied on
the orders of this Court in Sk. Abbas Ali versus State of West
Bengal & Others dated 02.9.2026 [WPA No. 22811 of 2026] and
Md. Ifterkhar versus CESC Limited & Another dated 09.4.2026
[MAT No. 510 of 2026].

9. The legal position is well settled now, particularly in view of the
orders of this Court in Santosh Agarwal’s case (supra) and
subsequently in the case of CESC Limited versus Smt.Sutapa

6

Nath & Another [order dated 14.10.2026 in MAT No. 1782 of
2026] . The Courts have held firstly that, against a final order of
assessment the alternative efficacious remedy available is that
of an appeal against the same as per provisions under the
statute. Secondly, so far as the issue of grant of reconnection on
payment of 50% of the assessed amount is concerned, the
Court has held that, though under section 127 (2) of the 2003
legislation, an appeal is maintainable on deposit of half of the
assessed amount but that is not enough for restoration of the
electricity connection in a case of theft of electricity [ Santosh
Agarwal’s case (supra) ]. The Courts have held that in view of
provision under sections 126, 127 and 135 of the said Act of
2003, a consumer would not be entitled to reconnection merely
on deposit of 50% of the assessed amount. The Court also held
that the following provision under regulation 6.4 of the West
Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply
Code) Regulations, 2013, provide for reconnection of supply to
be granted only after payment by the consumer of the
provisionally or finally assessed amount;
“ 6.4. Where a consumer served with the order of provisional
assessment under regulation 5.2 or the order of final
assessment under regulation 5.4 accepts such assessment and
wishes to pay the assessed amount, he may submit an
application to the licensee in the format as in Annexure – 2
within two working days from the date of receipt of the order
of provisional assessment or final assessment, as the case may
be, and the licensee shall provide him/serve upon him bill(s)
for the purpose within forty eight hours of receipt of such
application to enable the consumer to pay the amount
provisionally of finally assessed. On payment against such
provisional or final bill by the consumer, the reconnection
shall be done within 48 hours”.

7

10.
The legal position being so settled as discussed above, there is
hardly any scope for this Court to consider the petitioner’s
prayer for grant of reconnection, upon payment by him of 50%
of the amount finally assessed by the licensee vide its order
dated 07.9.2026. The provisions under the statute or the
regulations as discussed above are mandatory in nature and
the Legislature in its own wisdom, has made no scope for
relaxation of the said binding provisions of law. Had the Court
considered the prayer of the petitioner favourably, that would
have amounted to expanding the scope of the well-defined
statutory mandate in this regard. This Court would not be
justified in expanding the scope of the binding statutory
provisions, while exercising its power of judicial review. It
appears that though the petitioner has tried to impress upon
the Court that he actually desires to prefer appeal against the
said final order of assessment, but the same is far-fetched, in so
far as the statutory period of limitation of 30 days from the date
of the said order, has already been elapsed and there is no
provision and scope for the said statutory appellate authority,
to condone the delay committed by an aspiring appellant, in
filing the statutory appeal.
11.
In the foregoing circumstances, this Court cannot pass a
direction upon the respondent for grant of reconnection upon
payment of only the 50% of the assessed amount, without
making binding directions upon the petitioner to pay the entire
amount as assessed, in full, in a timebound manner. On the
contrary, the petitioner is found to be obliged as per the law, to
deposit the amount assessed by the respondent authority, vide
the order dated 07.9.2026, for restoration of connection to his
premises. However, since the petitioner has pleaded about his
financial stringency, this Court finds it proper to direct him to

8

deposit the said amount in instalments, spreading over the 3
successive English calendar months, starting from the date of
this judgment, in a manner as directed bellow.

12. Let therefore this writ petition be disposed of with the following
directions:

i. The petitioner shall deposit the said finally assessed
amount in order dated 07.9.2026, either at one time
or in 3 instalments, spreading over the 3 successive
English calendar months, starting from the date of
this judgment, in 50:25:25 percent ratio;
ii. The respondent authority shall accept payment of
the said finally assessed amount in order dated
07.9.2026, by the petitioner, at one time or in 3
instalments, spreading over the 3 successive
English calendar months, starting from the date of
this judgment, in 50:25:25 percent ratio;
iii. The respondent authority shall be obliged to
immediately restore the electricity connection to the
petitioner, maximum within the statutory 48 hours,
of receipt of the first instalment of 50% [or the
entire amount, as the case may be], of the finally
assessed amount as per order dated 07.9.2026;
iv. The respondent authority shall be entitled to take
steps against the writ petitioner, in accordance with
law, in case the writ petitioner, after restoration of
the electric connection, defaults in payment of the
rest instalments, unless he pays the entire assessed
amount at a time;

9

v. Since after reconnection, the writ petitioner shall be
obliged to pay the regular electricity bill/s, raised by
the respondent, as per his consumption; any
default in payment of the same shall render the
respondent entitled to take appropriate action
against the writ petitioner, in accordance with the
law.

13. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the application/s
pending, if any, with the directions as above.

14. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)