High Court declines writ intervention where a statutory appellate remedy under the Electricity Act remains available.

The petitioner challenged a provisional assessment/bill order dated 24 September 2021 and a final assessment order dated 23 October 2021, both issued by the Assessment Officer in connection with alleged unauthorized use or theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

He also sought directions for assessment under Section 126, restoration of his electricity connection, fair investigation in Ballia P.S. Case No. 312 of 2021 registered under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act, and protection against coercive action.

The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory appellate remedy under the Electricity Act.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the competent Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003?

Whether the petitioner should first pursue the statutory appellate remedy in respect of the provisional and final assessment orders and raise all related grievances before that authority?

The Court applied the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 concerning assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 and offences relating to theft or dishonest abstraction of electricity under Sections 135 and 138.

It further applied the established rule of judicial restraint that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained where an effective alternative statutory remedy, including an appeal under the governing legislation, is available.

The Court accepted the respondents’ preliminary objection that the petitioner had an available appellate remedy under the Electricity Act.

Since the challenge concerned the assessment orders and related grievances arising from the electricity proceedings, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction at that stage and directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority first.

The Court did not adjudicate whether the assessment ought to have been made under Section 126 rather than Section 135, nor did it examine the legality of the disconnection, criminal case, or alleged coercive action.

However, it directed the Appellate Authority to consider the limitation issue liberally, having regard to the fact that the writ petition had been filed in 2022, and to provide the petitioner a hearing.

The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within one month from receipt of the order, and the Authority was directed to consider the limitation issue liberally, hear the petitioner, and decide the appeal within three months of its filing in accordance with law.

No substantive relief regarding quashing of the assessment orders, restoration of electricity, investigation, or protection from coercive action was granted by the High Court.