Jharkhand HC Rejects JUVNL Challenge To Appellate Order Modifying Electricity Assessment After Consumer’s Theft Acquittal

On 31 January 2012, JUVNL inspected M/s Khatu Shyam Udyog’s premises and recorded a connected load of 344 HP against a sanctioned load of 105 HP, along with circumstances it considered indicative of electricity theft.

An FIR was registered under Sections 135, 138 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and JUVNL issued a provisional assessment of ₹51,06,041, later finalised at ₹47,24,568.

Following earlier writ proceedings and deposits, the consumer appealed under Section 127; the Senior Electrical Inspector allowed the appeal and directed a fresh bill.

The consumer was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case on 19 November 2019.

JUVNL challenged the appellate order under Article 226.

Section 126 of the Electricity Act provides for assessment in cases of unauthorised use of electricity, including excess consumption beyond sanctioned load; Section 127 provides an appellate remedy against an assessment under Section 126.

In theft cases, Section 154(5) empowers the Special Court to determine civil liability, and Section 154(6) provides for refund, with interest, of any excess amount deposited over the liability finally determined.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Executive Engineer, SOUTHCO v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108, distinguishes unauthorised use under Section 126 from theft under Section 135.

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Vaibhav Metal Crusher, 2026 INSC 1157, holds that a Section 126 assessment may be relevant to restoration of supply following disconnection for theft, but the Special Court’s determination under Section 154(5) governs civil liability and is not bound by the appellate determination under Section 127.

The Court also referred to M/s Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Co. v. J.S.E.B. for the distinction between the procedures under Sections 126 and 135.

The Court treated the matter as one arising from a theft allegation: the FIR was registered under Sections 135, 138 and 139, and the consumer had faced trial before being acquitted.

It distinguished Seetaram Rice Mill because that case concerned excess load under Section 126, whereas the present case involved proceedings for theft.

Applying Vaibhav Metal Crusher, the Court recognised that Section 126 assessment could bear on restoration of electricity, but held that civil liability for theft falls within the Special Court’s jurisdiction under Section 154(5).

It also noted the inconsistency in JUVNL’s position: its pleadings asserted that the Section 127 appeal was not maintainable, while its submissions challenged the appellate authority’s decision on the merits.

Finally, because the consumer had not challenged the impugned order, the Court declined to grant the consumer’s requested refund in JUVNL’s writ petition.

It did not grant the consumer a refund, as the consumer had not challenged the impugned order.