Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Fact Pertaining to Electricity Theft Under Section 135

The petitioner, a resident of Gaya, filed a criminal writ petition seeking the quashing of a search and seizure operation conducted at her premises on 10/01/2026 and the subsequent FIR (Rampur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2026) registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioner alleged that the seizure of her smart meter was unauthorized, no family members were present during the raid, and the resulting electricity bill of ₹68,383 was illegal.

Conversely, the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL) contended that the raid revealed meter bypassing via direct tapping of the service wire, causing financial loss, which the petitioner subsequently paid.

1. Whether the search, seizure, and registration of the FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, were illegal or without jurisdiction due to lack of prior notice or procedural lapses.

2. Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the merits of an electricity theft allegation.

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which governs the offense of theft of electricity and empowers authorities to conduct search and seizure upon suspicion of dishonest abstraction of energy.

The principle that writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate forum for adjudicating "disputed questions of facts" that pertain to trial proceedings.

Under Section 135, no prior notice is required for conducting raids in cases of suspected theft.

The Court examined the contents of the FIR and determined that, prima facie, the ingredients of an offense under Section 135 of the Electricity Act were present, as the respondent authorities detected meter bypassing.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of procedural illegality, noting that the electricity authorities acted within their statutory parameters for conducting raids and that the absence of pending dues did not negate the possibility of theft by direct tapping.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide intention on the part of the authorities.

It reasoned that the petitioner’s defenses—such as the absence of family members during the raid and the validity of the seizure list—are matters of evidence to be determined during the trial, not in a writ proceeding.

It ruled that the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed factual matters properly belonging to a trial. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.