Electricity supply cannot be restored after final assessment without payment of the entire assessed amount.

The petitioner challenged the disconnection of electricity at the relevant premises by CESC on the ground of unauthorised use of electricity. The petitioner’s father was the registered consumer, and the supply was disconnected on 29 May 2026 following an inspection by the authorised and assessing officers.

A provisional assessment was made on the same date. The petitioner participated in the hearing before the assessing officer on 6 June 2026, and a final assessment order was passed on 8 June 2026 and served on the petitioner/petitioner’s mother on 12 June 2026.

The writ petition was filed on 24 August 2026, after expiry of the period for preferring an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petition was also silent regarding both the provisional and final assessment orders.

Whether the High Court should direct immediate restoration of electricity supply after a final assessment order for unauthorised use of electricity had been passed and served on the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner could obtain restoration of electricity by paying the assessed amount in instalments or by paying only a lump sum pending payment of the balance.

Whether the petitioner’s other grievances and prayers were maintainable in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court applied Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides the statutory appellate remedy against a final assessment order, and held that writ intervention was not appropriate after the assessment order had been passed and the statutory appeal period had expired.

It further applied Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulation 6.3 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013, under which restoration of electricity supply after a final assessment for unauthorised use can be secured upon payment of the finally assessed amount in full.

The Court also recognised that it could not issue a mandatory direction requiring CESC to accept payment by instalments where the governing law did not confer such entitlement.

The Court found that the disconnection followed an inspection, provisional assessment, hearing, and final assessment process in which the petitioner had participated.

Since the final assessment order had been served in June 2026 and the writ petition was filed only on 24 August 2026, after expiry of the statutory appellate period, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction for immediate restoration, particularly as the petition did not disclose the assessment orders.

Applying Section 135(1A) and Regulation 6.3, the Court held that restoration could be directed only upon payment of the entire finally assessed amount.

Although the petitioner sought payment in instalments and restoration in the meantime, the Court held that no mandatory order could be made to that effect; the petitioner could only request CESC to consider such an arrangement independently and in accordance with law.

It directed that, if the petitioner paid the entire finally assessed amount, CESC would restore the electricity supply within forty-eight hours of payment.

The petitioner was permitted to approach CESC with a request to accept a lump-sum payment followed by instalments, but CESC was required to decide that request independently, without any mandate from the Court.

The remaining prayers were held not maintainable before the High Court, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue them before the appropriate forum. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.