Appellate Authority under Electricity Act is a quasi-judicial tribunal amenable to Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction.

The petitioner (Electricity Company) conducted an inspection of the respondent’s premises and found unauthorized electricity usage of 38 HP against a sanctioned load of 24 HP

A final assessment order for Rs. 1,62,934/- was issued on 04.01.2011

The respondent challenged this assessment before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) under the Electricity Act.

On 22.09.2012, the Appellate Authority quashed the assessment and remanded the matter, directing the petitioner to conduct a fresh assessment based on the actual period of unauthorized use rather than the default one-year period

The petitioner filed the current writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside this remand order

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination of the period of unauthorized use

Article 227 of the Constitution regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals

Jai Singh v. MCD (2010) 9 SCC 385, which establishes that statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercising powers within the bounds of law are subject to Article 227

Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004, to define the statutory nature of the authority

principle from Anant Singh v. Govind (1999) RN 99, holding that writ petitions against remand orders are generally not maintainable

The Court first addressed the maintainability of the petition. It observed that the Appellate Authority, designated under Section 127 of the Electricity Act and composed of Gazetted Officers or District Judges, is a statutory and quasi-judicial authority.

Applying the Jai Singh principle, the Court held that since the authority decides disputes in a judicial manner, its orders are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 227, thereby rejecting the respondent's preliminary objection

However, regarding the merits of the challenge to the remand order, the Court noted that remanding the case to the Assessing Officer does not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

Both parties retain the opportunity to present material regarding the actual period of unauthorized use

The Court reasoned that since the order is a remand and not a final determination of liability, interference via writ jurisdiction is not warranted

The High Court disposed of the bunch of writ petitions, granting liberty to the parties to raise all questions regarding unauthorized use, period, and excess load before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the dispute within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.