Bombay HC Orders Interim Power Restoration To Stone-Crusher On ₹11.46 Lakh Deposit, Questioning 22-Month Assessment For Alleged Theft

The petitioner operated a stone-crusher plant supplied through two electricity meters.

On 18 December 2024, an MSEDCL flying squad alleged that supply to one connection had been diverted so as to bypass the meter.

MSEDCL raised a theft-of-electricity bill of ₹22,93,410 and a separate compounding charge of ₹7,50,000; following non-payment, supply to both meters was disconnected and a complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was lodged.

In proceedings before the Special Court for determination of civil liability under Section 154(5), a court-appointed Electrical Inspector reported that the theft period could not be established and assessed net consumption of 16,591 units on a six-month basis.

The petitioner’s applications for interim restoration were rejected.

In this petition under Article 227, he sought restoration on payment of an amount based on the Inspector’s report; MSEDCL maintained that supply could not be restored without payment of its full demand.

Section 135(1A), third proviso, of the Electricity Act, 2003 requires restoration of supply within 48 hours upon deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges; Section 126 provides the assessment procedure, including provisional assessment, an opportunity to object, and final assessment, while Section 127 provides an appeal against the final assessment.

Section 154(5) empowers the Special Court to determine civil liability for theft, and Section 154(6) provides for refund of excess amounts deposited.

Following West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd., Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. Vaibhav Metal Crusher, the Court held that, absent a separate applicable assessment procedure, the “assessed amount” for restoration under Section 135(1A) is determined under Sections 126 and 127; that assessment remains subject to the Special Court’s determination of civil liability.

The Court also applied the principle in Dakshin Gujarat that, where a provisional assessment is prima facie arbitrary, a constitutional court may, for recorded reasons, order restoration on payment of an amount not less than 50% of the demand.

Clause 10.1.2 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electric Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021 provides for assessment at twice the applicable tariff and presumes a 12-month period where the period of theft cannot be ascertained.

The Court found no material showing that MSEDCL had followed the Section 126 procedure or issued a final assessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity to object.

Although the Electrical Inspector was not the statutory Assessing Officer, the report could not be treated as valueless at the interim stage, particularly in the absence of a Section 126 assessment.

The Inspector’s finding that the theft period could not be established also raised a prima facie concern about MSEDCL’s 22-month assessment, given the 12-month default period in the Regulations and the limit specified in Section 154(5) for determining civil liability.

In light of the prolonged disconnection and the time required for final determination, the Court considered interim restoration appropriate on payment of 50% of the electricity-charge demand.

It clarified that its observations were not to influence the Special Court’s final determination of civil liability under Section 154(5).