M/S. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited
Background
The petitioner company's factory had a high-tension electricity connection. After an electrical fault and blast in the metering unit was repaired, a later inspection led the electricity distribution company (Nigam) to lodge an FIR for theft of electricity and issue a Provisional Assessment Order demanding over Rs. 3.23 crore. The company challenged this by writ petition, arguing the inspection report never actually recorded evidence of theft. The Single Judge quashed the assessment order, but the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, holding the writ was not maintainable given the statutory remedy under the Electricity Act.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the writ petition was maintainable because the Electricity Act only provides a statutory appeal against a final assessment order (Section 127), not a provisional one, so no alternative remedy barred the writ. On merits, it held that "theft of electricity" (Section 135) requires proof of dishonest intent, distinct from the civil-natured "unauthorised use" (Section 126), and the inspection report here disclosed no actual evidence of theft, only vague suspicion, with no seizure of material as required by regulations. The Division Bench's order was set aside and the Single Judge's quashing of the assessment order was restored.
Lesson Learnt
A vague inspection report reflecting mere suspicion cannot support a theft-of-electricity penalty, which requires proof of dishonest intent to the criminal standard; and a provisional (non-final) assessment order can be directly challenged in a writ petition since no statutory appeal lies against it.