Misuse of residential electricity for adjacent construction warrants tariff category change rather than unauthorized use proceedings.

The appellant, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, filed an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order dated 12.04.2019.

The case originated when an inspection on 12.06.2015 revealed that Respondent No. 1, who held a 1 KW residential electricity connection, was using that electricity for construction activities on an adjacent plot.

The appellant issued a final assessment bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for "unauthorized use of electricity".

The Electrical Inspector (Appellate Authority) set aside this assessment on 20.10.2015, a decision upheld by the Single Judge.

The appellant contended that using residential electricity for construction falls strictly under Section 126, Explanation (b)(iv).

1. Whether the use of electricity for construction purposes on an adjacent plot by a residential consumer constitutes "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, or a mere misclassification of tariff under the Supply Code.

2. Whether the Court should interfere with the quashing of an assessment bill after a lapse of ten years without an interim stay.

Section 126, Explanation (b)(iv) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which defines "unauthorized use of electricity" as use for purposes other than those for which the usage was authorized.

Clause 3.5 of the Supply Code, which provides a mechanism for the distribution company to reclassify a consumer’s category and reassess tariff in cases of load increase or change in activity, rather than resorting to penal assessments for unauthorized use.

The Court reasoned that while the respondent used electricity for a purpose other than residential, it was not a case of using "unauthorized means" to consume power.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s view that under Clause 3.5 of the Supply Code, the appellant should have directed the consumer to apply for a change of tariff/category and subsequently levied the difference in tariff from the date of use.

The Court noted the significant procedural delay; the assessment was quashed in 2015, and no interim stay was granted during the writ or appeal proceedings.

The Court took judicial notice that over the intervening decade, any construction would have been completed and likely granted a regular connection, implying that no dues remained on the property.

The Court held that given the payment of actual consumption bills and the passage of ten years, it was not a fit case for interference.

The Court clarified that the judgment is based on the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case and shall not serve as a precedent for other matters. All connected civil applications were disposed of accordingly.