Appellate findings of meter tampering supported by laboratory evidence warrant no interference under writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, an electricity consumer, was issued a supplementary bill of ₹2,21,635.73 by the respondent power company following allegations of electricity theft and meter tampering

The petitioner contended that he engaged a private technician to restore power during a festival after the company failed to address a service line fault, and subsequently applied for re-sealing

However, a laboratory test conducted by the respondent company revealed that the MMB seal and terminal block screws had been tampered with

Based on these findings, a final assessment bill was issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioner challenged this before the Appellate Authority under Section 127, which partly allowed the appeal by reducing the assessment from ₹2,77,044.66 to ₹2,21,635.73

The petitioner then moved the High Court to quash the Appellate Authority’s order and the supplementary bill

Whether the laboratory report finding evidence of meter tampering justified the issuance of a supplementary bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003

Whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 127, which granted partial relief to the petitioner, suffered from any legal infirmity requiring interference by the High Court

The court primarily applied Section 126 (Assessment of unauthorized use of electricity) and Section 127 (Appeal to Appellate Authority) of the Electricity Act, 2003

These provisions establish the statutory framework for penalizing electricity theft/tampering and provide a specialized appellate mechanism to review such assessments based on factual evidence, such as laboratory reports and checking sheets

The court found that the respondent company’s laboratory report and checking sheet provided a clear factual basis for the allegation of meter tampering

The court noted that the Appellate Authority had already performed a substantive review of the case, including the petitioner’s explanations regarding the private technician and the service line fault

By reducing the bill amount from approximately ₹2.77 lakhs to ₹2.21 lakhs, the Appellate Authority had already exercised its discretion to provide partial relief based on the merits of the case

The High Court concluded that since the findings of tampering were supported by technical evidence and the appellate process had been properly followed, there were no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the lower authority's decision

The court found the petition meritless and discharged the Rule, further directing that any interim relief previously granted be vacated immediately