Writ jurisdiction was declined where an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 127 was available.

The Bank had an electricity connection for an ATM installed on 3 May 2013.

No regular bills were raised before a vigilance inspection on 3 February 2017, following which the respondents demanded ₹17,05,705 based on the meter reading and alleged seal tampering.

The Bank disputed the inspection, meter reading, and assessment, and contended that the demand was barred by Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It also stated that the demand was later reduced to ₹6,56,601, without an adequately explained basis.

The respondents raised the availability of an appeal under Section 127 against the assessment under Section 126.

The Bank sought to quash the demand and restore the ATM’s electricity supply.

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the Bank had a statutory appellate remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003

2. Whether the demand was barred by Section 56(2), or otherwise unsustainable because of alleged defects in the inspection and assessment

Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for assessment in cases of unauthorised use of electricity, and Section 127 provides a statutory appeal against a final assessment.

The Court applied the principle that an efficacious statutory remedy ordinarily weighs against exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the dispute involves factual questions suited to the statutory appellate authority.

Section 56(2) concerns recovery of electricity charges, but the Court did not decide its application to this demand; it noted the respondents’ reliance on M/s Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2021) 20 SCC 200, without determining the merits of that argument.

The demand arose from a vigilance inspection and subsequent assessment, while the Bank disputed the meter reading, alleged tampering, inspection procedure, and calculation of the demand.

The Court considered those issues appropriate for examination by the Section 127 appellate authority, rather than in writ proceedings.

It therefore declined to determine whether Section 56(2) barred recovery or whether the assessment was otherwise correct.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the demand or the Bank’s limitation claim under Section 56(2).