Writ Jurisdiction Barred Against Electricity Theft Bills Where Statutory Remedy Exists Before Special Courts

The petitioner, an industrial unit engaged in stone crushing, challenged a supplementary bill of ₹1,10,34,710.69 issued by respondent PGVCL following an inspection that alleged electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003

To avoid disconnection and criminal proceedings, the petitioner paid the bill and compounding charges in installments

However, the petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the bill and seek a fresh hearing on "civil liability," arguing that the respondent misconstrued the provisions of the Act

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a supplementary bill issued for alleged electricity theft when statutory remedies exist under the Electricity Act, 2003

2. Whether the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine civil liability in cases of energy theft

The court primarily applied Section 135 and Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which delegate the determination of civil liability for electricity theft to Special Courts

It relied on the precedent Mukheshbhai Laljibhai Nashit v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (2020), which established that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked when a statutory remedy is available

Furthermore, it cited the Supreme Court decision in UP Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad (2013) 8 SCC 491, holding that matters involving Sections 135 to 140 must be tried by Special Courts constituted under Section 153

The court examined the respondent's contention that because the dispute arose from an allegation of theft under Section 135, the petitioner was legally required to approach the Special Court via a civil suit to determine the actual liability in terms of money

The High Court agreed with existing jurisprudence that electricity theft cases possess a specific statutory framework for adjudication. The court reasoned that since Section 154 of the Act empowers Special Courts to determine civil liability, the petitioner cannot bypass this efficacious alternative remedy by filing a writ petition

Consequently, the merits of the supplementary bill were not scrutinized by the High Court, as the appropriate forum for factual and legal determination is the Special Court

The petitioner was granted permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings (a Special Civil Suit) before the Special Court as provided under Section 154 of the Electricity Act. The Special Court was directed to decide the suit on its own merits and in accordance with the law, and the Rule was discharged