Writ jurisdiction is barred against electricity theft assessments where statutory remedy lies before the Special Court.

The petitioner, who operates R.O. plants, challenged a letter dated 23.12.2025 and a supplementary bill dated 22.12.2025 for Rs. 54,04,788.24 issued by Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) for alleged electricity theft

Following an inspection of the petitioner's premises on 22.12.2025, the respondent concluded that an offense under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, had been committed and subsequently registered an FIR

The petitioner contended that the inspection and the resulting bill were illegal, violated the principles of natural justice, and misapplied Sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Act

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a supplementary bill issued for alleged electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003

2. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust the statutory remedy of approaching a Special Court to determine civil liability in matters involving electricity theft

The court primarily applied Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the offense of electricity theft, and Section 154, which details the procedure and power of Special Courts to determine civil liability

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v. Anis Ahmad (2013) 8 SCC 491, which held that cases involving Sections 135 to 140 of the Act must be tried by Special Courts constituted under Section 153

Further, the court applied the principle from Mukeshbhai Laljibhai Nashit v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (2020), affirming that Article 226 jurisdiction should not be invoked when the Special Court has the statutory power to determine civil liability for theft of energy

The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable because the dispute arose from an allegation of theft under Section 135, for which the Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine civil liability

The High Court observed that when civil liability arises from electricity theft, the statutory framework of the Electricity Act provides a specific remedy via the Special Court under Section 154

Following the settled legal principles in Anis Ahmad, the court noted that the petitioner must seek recourse through a special civil suit rather than a writ petition

The court emphasized that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226

Instead, it granted the petitioner permission to withdraw the petition to pursue the appropriate legal recourse

The petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Special Court constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003

Rule was discharged