Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Through ... vs M/S Dew Concrete Private Tiles Limited ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No.440 of 2015
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. through its Law Officer namely Arun
Kumar Srivatava, son of Late R.K. Lal, resident of Gas Godown, P.O. &
P.S. Namkum Dist. Ranchi. ............ Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. M/s DEW Concrete Private Tiles Limited having its factory at
Narsingarh, Bhairavpur Dalbhumgarh, Dist. East Singhbhum and
registered office at "Firdale" Road No. 15, Jawahar Nagar, Azad Nagar,
P.O & P.S- Mango, Jamshedpur through its Director Rakesh Srivastava.
....... Respondent/Respondent
2. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum.
......Proforma Respondent/Respondent
With
L.P.A No.385 of 2015
M/s. Vaishnavi Steel Industries, having its Unit at - Bandha, P.O.-Deoghar,
P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar through its proprietor Santosh Kumar Khetan,
son of Late Chedi Lal Khetan, Resident of -Baijnathpur, P.O. - Deoghar,
P.S. - Mohanpur, District - Deoghar
.........Respondent No.2/Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (earlier known as Jharkhand State
Electricity Board), having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Project Bhawan,
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
...... Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. Chief Engineer-cum-Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Appellate
Authority, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
....... Respondent/Respondent No.2
3. The State of Jharkhand through, Secretary, Energy Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Ranchi ....... Respondent/Respondent
With
L.P.A No.406 of 2015
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. through its Law Officer namely Arun
Kumar Srivatava, son of Late R.K. Lal, resident of Gas Godown, P.O. &
P.S. Namkum Dist. Ranchi. ............ Respondent/Appellant
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
Versus
1. DEW Concrete Ties Private Limited having its factory at Narsingarh,
Bhairavpur Dalbhumgarh, Dist. East Singhbhum and registered
office at "Firdale" Road No. 15, Jawahar Nagar, Azad Nagar, Mango,
P.O & P.S- Mango, Jamshedpur-832110, through its Director Rakesh
Srivastava son of Late S.N.P. Srivastava, resident of HIG-A1,
Madhav Bang Colony, Mango, P.O & P.S-Mango, Town-
Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum.
2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Board, JSEB,
Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum.
3. Electrical Engineer (Technical Service), JSEB Electricity Board,
Ranchi.
4. Electrical Executive Engineer (MRT), JSEB, Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum.
5. Assistant Electrical Engineer (in-charge), JSEB, Dhalbhumgarh,
East Singhbhum.
6. Assistant Electrical Engineer (APDRP), JSEB, Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum. ......... Petitioner/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate
Ms. Divya Choudhary, Advocate
Mrs. Lavanya Gadodia Mittal, Advocate
(Appellant in L.P.A No.385/2015)
[(Respondent in L.P.A Nos.440/2015 & L.P.A No. 406/2015)]
For the JUVNL : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, SC
Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to SC
(Respondents in L.P.A No.385/2015)
[(Appellant in L.P.A Nos.440/2015 & L.P.A No. 406/2015)]
------
C.A.V on 29.08.2025 Pronounced on 26/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. All these Letters Patent Appeals have been directed to be listed together and, accordingly, listed together for the reason that the issues involved in all these appeals are identical.
2
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
2. These appeals have been heard together with the consent of the parties, however, the factual aspects and the grounds taken on behalf of the appellant(s) in all these appeals are being reflected separately. L.P.A No.440 of 2015
3. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed in W.P(C) No. 3986 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that if order of provisional assessment is served upon assessee and thereafter a final order of assessment is passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 then against order of final assessment an appeal will lie under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in pursuance thereto, the authority concerned has passed an order on 28.07.2008, therefore, the said order has been refused to interfere with.
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) It has been averred that the respondent no. 1-M/s Dew Concrete Pvt.
Tiles Limited is engaged in business of manufacturing concrete sleeper for the Indian Railways.
(ii) The H/T Industrial connection to the respondent no. 1 was inspected by the Electrical Executive Engineer (MRT), -J.S.E. B, Jamshedpur on 30.01.2006.
(iii) A surprise inspection was conducted on 07.02.2006 in which both the seal L.V.-cum-C.T. Box were found broken. Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged on 07.02.2006 and the loss to the Board was assessed at Rs. 34 lakhs.
3
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
(iv) The respondent no. 1 moved this Court in WP(C) No. 926 of 2006 challenging the provisional order of assessment.
(v) This Court directed the respondent no. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs and to move before Vidyut Upbhokta Sikayat Niwaran Forum of Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
(vi) However, the Forum declined to hear the matter on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the respondent no. 1 approached this Court again in W.P(C) No. 2885 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2008 directing the respondent no. 1 to file representation to the Superintending Engineer who was directed to assess the actual loss caused to the Board. Further direction was also issued to the Superintending Engineer to pass appropriate order of adjustment/refund, if the amount paid by the respondent no. 1 was in excess of the actual loss assessed by the Superintending Engineer.
(vii) Consequently, the Superintending Engineer passed the assessment order dated 28.07.2008, assessing the total loss to the Electricity Board at Rs. 11,12, 600/-.
(viii) Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.07.2008, the present appellant has preferred writ petition being WP (C) No. 3986 of 2009 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2014 on the ground that in a case of final assessment passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appeal will lie under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in pursuance thereto, the authority has passed an order on 28.07.2008, therefore, same is not requires to interfere with.
4
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
5. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner/appellant-JUVNL.
6. Submission on behalf of the appellant-JUVNL:
(i) It has been contended that section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the Assessment Officer has to find the period of unauthorized use of electricity in cases where exact period of unauthorized use of electricity is not possible to ascertain.
(ii) It has further been contended that the Electricity Act, 2003 provides a mechanism for assessment which is on L x F x H x D Formula, in case of unauthorized use of electricity. The energy used is required to be assessed under Clause 16.9 of the Tariff-1993 which was applicable till December, 2003.
7. Submission on behalf of the respondent-Company:
(i) It has been contended that there is a provision for appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(ii) It has further been contended that on a false accusation, a First Information Report was lodged against the Director of the Company and a final assessment order was passed under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 whereunder, total loss was assessed at Rs.11,12,600/-
and in terms of order dated 07.02.20089 passed in W.P(C) No.1819 of 2010 the petitioner-JUVNL was liable to adjust/refund excess amount.
(iii) It has further been contended that in view of decision in "M/s Jai Mahavir Atta Mill & another Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others" (in L.P.A. No. 164 of 2009), formula of 1993-tariff that is, L x F 5 2025:JHHC:30671-DB x H x D cannot be made applicable in this case and the judgment in "J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & others" reported in (2003) 5 SCC 226 is also not applicable in the present case. In the said judgement, the provision of 1993-tariff of the Bihar State Electricity Board has been dealt with and the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 has not been considered in J.M.D. Alloys Case.
L.P.A No.385 of 2015
8. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 30.04.2015 passed in W.P(C) No.6105 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has interfered with the order passed by the authority concerned under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the ground of institution of First Information Report.
9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) It has been averred that the electric connection load at the unit of the respondent no. 2 (appellant herein) was enhanced from 200 KVA to 500 KVA.
(ii) On 27.05.2008, the unit of the respondent no. 2-company (appellant herein) namely, M/s Vaishnavi Steel Industries was inspected.
(iii) While changing the Modem installed in the energy meter, when it was noticed that the terminal connection was damaged on further inspection, it was found that two plastic seals of top cover of CTPT Combined Meter Unit was found broken.6
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
(iv) A copy of the inspection report dated 27.05.2008 was served upon the representative of the respondent no. 2.
(v) On the basis of the written report of the Assistant Electric Engineer, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2008 was lodged for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(vi) A provisional bill for Rs. 87,62,000/- was issued to the respondent no. 2, to which it submitted its objection and the final assessment order was passed on 15.07.2008 whereby, loss to the petitioner Board (respondent herein) was determined at Rs. 40,31,840/-.
(vii) The respondent no. 2(appellant herein) moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2805 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2008 directing the respondent no. 2 to deposit 50% of the assessed amount, first and it was directed to deposit the remaining 50% in two installments.
(viii) The respondent no. 2 thereafter, filed Appeal No. 10 of 2008 which has been allowed by the order dated 15.10.2008.
(ix) Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2008, petitioner Board/ (Respondent no. 1 herein) has preferred writ petition being WP (C) No. 6105 of 2008 and the same was allowed by the writ Court by setting aside the order dated 15.10.2008 passed in appeal no. 10 of 2008.
10. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-M/s Vaishnavi Steel Industries.
7
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
11. Submission on behalf of the appellant-Company:
(i) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant-M/s Vaishnavi Steel Industries by supporting the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 in Appeal No. 10 of 2008 that in pursuance of order dated 13.08.2008 in W.P(C) No. 2805 of 2008 the appeal being Appeal No. 10 of 2008 was preferred.
(ii) It has been contended that that once a provisional bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been served upon the consumer and the same has been revised, the consequence of exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Authority under Section 126 would be that the consumer is entitled to prefer appeal in terms of Section 127 of the Act.
12. Submission on behalf of the respondent-JUVNL:
(i) It has been contended that registration of the criminal case for theft of energy at the unit of appellant is a matter of record still, the Appellate Authority entertained the appeal preferred by the appellant.
(ii) It has further been contended that considering the submission raised on behalf of the appellant company W.P.(C) No. 2805 of 2008 was disposed of directing the company to deposit the total assessed amount however, order dated 13.08.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 2805 of 2008 cannot be construed as conferring jurisdiction upon the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal of the company which otherwise is not maintainable.L.P.A No.406 of 2015
13. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed in W.P(C) No.1819 of 2010 wherein the writ petition has been allowed by directing the authority 8 2025:JHHC:30671-DB to refund the rest of the amount after deducting it on the amount if deposited as per the direction passed by this Court for the purpose of restoration of the electric supply and the amount has been assessed finally under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
14. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) The petitioner (respondent herein) M/s Dew Concrete Ties Pvt.
Limited is engaged in business of manufacturing concrete sleeper for the Indian Railways.
(ii) The H/T Industrial connection to the petitioner-firm was inspected by the respondent regularly and the last inspection was conducted by the respondent no. 4 on 30.01.2006 when after examining L.V.- cum-C.T. Box, the respondent no. 4 gave satisfaction certificate.
(iii) It has been averred that eight days thereafter, a surprise inspection was conducted on 07.02.2006 in which both the seal L.V.-cum-C.T. Box were found broken.
(iv) Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged on 07.02.2006 and the loss to the Board was arbitrarily assessed at Rs. 34 lakhs.
(v) Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 926 of 2006 challenging the provisional order of assessment. This Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs and to move before Vidyut Upbhokta Sikayat Niwaran Forum of Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
(vi) When the Forum declined to hear the matter on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner approached this Court again in W.P.(C) No. 2885 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order 9 2025:JHHC:30671-DB dated 07.02.2008 directing the petitioner to file representation to the Superintending Engineer who would assess the actual loss caused to the Board. A further direction was also issued to the Superintending Engineer to pass appropriate order of adjustment/refund, if the amount paid by the petitioner was in excess of the actual loss assessed by the Superintending Engineer.
(vii) Consequently, the Superintending Engineer passed the assessment order dated 28.07.2008, assessing the total loss to the Electricity Board at Rs. 11,12,600/-. and a direction was issued to the Electrical Executive Engineer, (C.&R.) Jamshedpur to refund/adjust the balance amount of Rs. 18,87,400/.
(viii) The petitioner (respondent herein) made representation for refund of excess amount however, no order was passed on the representation of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had again approached the writ Court and preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) 1819 of 2010.
(ix) The writ Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 (impugned herein) has allowed the said writ petition.
15. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-JUVNL.
Submission on behalf of the appellant-JUVNL:
16. It has been contended that a criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner which is pending trial and in terms of Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 unless, the said issue is decided the order of refund cannot be implemented.
Submission on behalf of the respondent-Company: 10
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
17. Mr. M. S. Mittal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Company submits that the Company has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2885 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2008 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs for immediate restoration of the electric connection and in compliance of the said order the petitioner-Company deposited the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs.
18. It has been contended that thereafter, this Court vide order dated 07.02.2008 gave liberty to the petitioner-Company to file a representation within a period of two weeks and upon submitting the representation by the petitioner-Company, the Electrical Superintending Engineer was directed to assess the actual loss caused to the Board.
19. It has been contended that in compliance of order dated 07.02.2008, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Circle, Jamshedpur vide order dated 28.07.2008 assessed the amount of excess payment made by the petitioner-company.
Analysis:
20. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment(s)/order(s) as also the material available on record.
21. So far as the issue of L.P.A Nos. 440 of 2015 and 385 of 2015 are concerned, the legal issues which require consideration as to whether in a case of proceeding initiated under section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003, will it be challenged before the authority under section 127 of the Electricity Act of 2003 or not?11
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
22. But, before consideration of the aforesaid issues, the relevant here to refer about the object and scope of enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 in supersession to the earlier Electricity Act, 1910.
23. The electricity supply in India was governed by three enactments, namely, Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998.
24. The Indian Electricity Act, 1910, created the basic framework for the electric supply industry in India which was then in its fancy.
25. The Act envisaged growth of the electricity through private licensee. It created the legal framework for laying down of wires and other works relating to the supply of electricity. The Electricity Supply Act, 1948 mandated the creation of State Electricity Board having the responsibility of arranging the supply of electricity in the State. But, over a period of time, however, the performance of the State Electricity Boards has deteriorated substantially on account of various factors. For instance, the power to fix tariff vests with the State Electricity Boards, they have generally been unable to take decision on tariffs in a professional and independent manner and tariff determination practice has been done by the State Governments.
26. To address this issue and to provide for distancing of Government from determination of tariffs, the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act was enacted in 1998. It created the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and has enabling provision through which the State Governments can create State Electricity Regulatory Commission. But different States have undertaken reforms through their own Reform Acts by separating Boards into separate generation, transmission and 12 2025:JHHC:30671-DB distribution companies. With the policy of encouraging private sector's participation in generation, transmission and distribution and the objective of distancing the regulatory responsibility from the Government to the Regulatory Commission, the need for harmonizing and rationalizing the provisions in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 in a new self- contained comprehensive legislation arose. Accordingly, it became necessary to enact a new legislation for regulating the electricity supply in the country which would replace the existing laws, preserve its core features other than those relating to the mandatory existence of State Electricity Boards and the responsibility of the State Government and the State Electricity Boards with respect to regulating licenses. There is also need to provide for newer concepts like power trading and open access. Apart from that, the other object was to restrict the misutilization and loss of revenue to the Electricity Boards.
27. It is evident from the scope that the primary object in enactment of the Act, 2003 is to deal with the issue of revenue loss and for that purpose, the provision of Section 126 has been inserted in the new enactment which was not available in the earlier statutory provision, for ready reference, Section 126 of the Act, 2003 is being quoted as under: -
"126.Assessment-(1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or uses, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.13
2025:JHHC:30671-DB (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.
(4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to [twice] the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5)."
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) 'assessing officer' means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;
(b) 'unauthorised use of electricity' means the usage of electricity--
(i) by any artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not authorised by the person or authority or licensee concerned; or
(iii) through a tampered meter; or
(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or 14 2025:JHHC:30671-DB
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised."
28. The definition of "unauthorized use of electricity" with explanation '(b)' of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is as follows:- "(b) "unauthorized use of electricity" means the usage of electricity-
(i) by any artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or
(iii) through a tampered meter; or
(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized."
29. The provision of Section 126 of the Act 2003 comprises of six sub-provisions starts with sub-section (1) thereof, whereby and whereunder, the power has been conferred upon the competent authority to conduct the inspection with respect to the issue of unauthorized use of electricity and after coming to the conclusion of the use of the electricity said to be unauthorized, a notice is required to be given to the consumer in order to provide an opportunity to put-forth his defence.
30. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 thereof provides that the order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed and sub-section (3) provides that the person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.
15
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
31. Sub-section (5) of Section 126 provides that the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
32. The provision of Section 127 of the Act, 2003 also requires to be referred herein, which reads as under: -
"127. Appeal to appellate authority.-(1) Any person aggrieved by the final order made under section 126 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed.
(2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-
section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to 3[half of the assessed amount] is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal.
(3) The appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing officer and the appellant.
(4) The order of the appellate authority referred to in sub- section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be final. (5) No appeal shall lie to the appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) against the final order made with the consent of the parties.
(6) When a person defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed amount shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent, per annum compounded every six months."
33. It is evident from Section 127 of the Act, 2003 that after the order having been passed of the final assessment in exercise of power conferred under Section 126(5) of the Act, 2003, an appeal will lie before the competent authority.
16
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
34. It is, thus, evident that the issue of provisional assessment will culminate the moment the final assessment will be passed under sub- section (5) of Section 126 and the party (consumer) aggrieved will have an opportunity to prefer an appeal by taking aid of the provision of Section 127 of the Act, 2003, which means that the provision of Section 126 and Section 127 are code in itself. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Thomas Joseph and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1737, whereby and whereunder it has been held that provision as contained under Section 126 of the Act, 2003 and Section 127 of the Act are the self-contained Code, which means that if the one or the other consumers is aggrieved with the assessment so made under Section 126 then the statutory remedy is available under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:
"56. The principles of law discernible from the aforesaid may be summarised as under:
(1) The provisions of Section 126, read with Section 127 of the Act, 2003become a Code in themselves. It specifically provides the method of computation of the amount that a consumer would be liable to pay for excessive consumption of electricity and for the manner of conducting assessment proceeding. Section 126 of the Act, 2003 has been enacted with a purpose to achieve i.e., to put an implied restriction on such unauthorised consumption of electricity.
(2) The purpose of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 is to provide safeguards to check the misuse of powers by unscrupulous elements. The provisions of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 are self-
explanatory. They are intended to cover situations, other than, the situations specifically covered under Section 135 of the Act, 2003. In such circumstances, the Court should adopt an 17 2025:JHHC:30671-DB interpretation which should help in attaining the legislative intent.
(3) The purpose sought to be achieved with the aid of the provisions of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 is to ensure stoppage of misuse/unauthorised use of the electricity as well as to ensure prevention of revenue loss.
(4) The overdrawal of electricity is prejudicial to the public at large, as it is likely to throw out of gear the entire supply system, undermining its efficiency, efficacy and even-increasing voltage fluctuations. (5) The expression 'unauthorised use of electricity' means as it appears in Section 126 of the Act, 2003. It is an expression of wider connotation and principle construed purposively in contrast to contextual interpretation, while keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Act, 2003."
35. At this juncture it also requires to refer herein to import of Section 135 and Section 154 of the Act, 2003, for ready reference the same is being quoted hereinbelow:
"135.Theft of Electricity-(1) whoever, dishonestly,-
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with find or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use:18
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorized shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection:
Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity 19 2025:JHHC:30671-DB charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment.
(2) Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorized in this behalf by the State Government may-
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity has been or is being, used unauthorisedly;
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being used for unauthorized use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act."
"Section 154. Procedure and power of Special Court.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed.
(2) Where it appears to any court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishable under [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] in respect of any offence that the case is one which is triable by a Special Court constituted under this Act for the 20 2025:JHHC:30671-DB area in which such case has arisen, it shall transfer such case to such Special Court, and thereupon such case shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act :
Provided that it shall be lawful for such Special Court to act on the evidence, if any, recorded by any court in the case of presence of the accused before the transfer of the case to any Special Court:
Provided further that if such Special Court is of opinion that further examination, cross-examination and re-examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is required in the interest of justice, it may re-summon any such witness and after such further examination, cross examination or re-examination, if any, as it may permit, the witness shall be discharged.
(3) The Special Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of section 260 or section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, try the offence referred to in [sections 135 to 140 and section 150] in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said Code and the provisions of sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial:
Provided that where in the course of a summary trial under this subsection, it appears to the Special Court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by the provisions of the said Code for the trial of such offence:
Provided further that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(4) A Special Court may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to, any offence tender pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof, and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 21 2025:JHHC:30671-DB (2 of 1974), be deemed to have been tendered under section 307 thereof.
(5) The [Special Court shall] determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court. (6) In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "civil liability"
means loss or damage incurred by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to the commission of an offence referred to in [sections 135 to 140 and section 150]."
36. Section 154(5) of the Act, 2003 stipulates about the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined, whichever is less.
37. While, Section 154(6) of the Act, 2003 stipulates about the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or 22 2025:JHHC:30671-DB the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.
38. The question has crept up, as to whether, the proceeding under Section 126 and Section 135 of the Act, 2003 can go simultaneously or in a case where the FIR has been instituted for theft of electricity in view of the provision of Section 135 of the Act, 2003, is there any bar in proceeding by taking aid of Section 126 of the Act, 2003.
39. The said issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, [(2012) 2 SCC 108]. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:
"24. Upon their plain reading, the marked differences in the contents of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act are obvious.
They are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise in law. We have already noticed that Sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 of the 2003 Act.
25. Section 135 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XIV relating to "offences and penalties" and title of the section is "theft of electricity". The section opens with the words "whoever, dishonestly" does any or all of the acts specified under clauses
(a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Besides imposition of punishment as specified 23 2025:JHHC:30671-DB under these provisions or the proviso thereto, sub-section (1-A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of the 2003 Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, through officer of rank authorised in this behalf by the appropriate commission, may immediately disconnect the supply of electricity and even take other measures enumerated under sub-sections (2) to (4) of the said section. The fine which may be imposed under Section 135 of the 2003 Act is directly proportional to the number of convictions and is also dependent on the extent of load abstracted.
27. The officer is also under obligation to serve a notice in terms of Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act upon any such consumer requiring him to file his objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before a final order of assessment is passed within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment. Thereafter, any person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him or prefer an appeal against the resultant final order under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The order of assessment under Section 126 and the period for which such order would be passed has to be in terms of sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The Explanation to Section 126 is of some significance, which we shall deal with shortly hereinafter. Section 126 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XII and relates to investigation and enforcement and empowers the assessing officer to pass an order of assessment.
28. Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea. 29 [Ed.: Para 29 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./2012 dated 26-3-2012.] . Thus, it would be clear that the expression "unauthorised use of electricity" under Section 24 2025:JHHC:30671-DB 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorised use, even in the absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand, where a consumer, by any of the means and methods as specified under Sections 135(a) to 135(e) of the 2003 Act, has abstracted energy with dishonest intention and without authorisation, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter, the case would fall under Section 135 of the Act.
30. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other. There is no commonality between them in law. They operate in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of assessment in cases of unauthorised use of electricity and cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorised use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act.
40. It is evident from the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove that the proceeding under Section 126 and 135 are distinct in nature and will go simultaneously. The reason has been assigned that the provision of Section 126 is being dealt with in a situation where the use of electricity unauthorized, meaning thereby, there is no mens rea, while, in a case of theft of electricity, mens rea is there.
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Vrs. Orion Metal Private Limited & Anr., reported in (2020) 18 SCC 588, 25 2025:JHHC:30671-DB while interpreting the term "unauthorized use of energy" has been pleased to hold that the said terms is of wide connotation. There may be cases of unauthorized use of energy, not amounting to theft, which are cases viz. exceeding the sanctioned load or using the electricity in the premises where its use is not authorized, etc. But at the same time, where there is an allegation of unauthorized use of energy by tampering the meter, such cases of unauthorized use of energy include "theft" as defined under Section 135 of the Act. The power conferred on authorities for making assessment under Section 126(1) of the Act and power to determine civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Act, cannot be said to be parallel to each other.
42. It has further been held that both the proceedings initiated under Section 126 and Section 135 will operate parallelly.
43. It has further been observed in the judgment passed in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Vrs. Orion Metal Private Limited & Anr., (supra) wherein, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Company Orissa Ltd. (SOUTHCO) & Anr. Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) it has been held while dealing with the Scheme of the Act, that after inspection team notices unauthorized use of energy by tampering the meter tampering the meter, the authorities can disconnect the power supply immediately and make immediate assessment for loss of energy, by invoking power under Section 126(1) of the Act.
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Vrs. 26
2025:JHHC:30671-DB Appellate Authority and Anr., (supra) has held that if the proceeding has been initiated under Section 126(1), culminated by passing the final assessment under sub-section (5) of Section 126, then, the same is to be given its logical end, i.e., by way of filing an appeal if the party is aggrieved under Section 127 of the Act, 2003. It has been held that that both Section 126 and Section 135 are independent in all respects and provide different kind of liability and consequences. One involves monetary liability (Section 126) whereas the other involves criminal liability (Section 135). The Board, is therefore, at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Section 126 or/and 135 of the Act against such person/consumer as provided therein in accordance with law, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs-10 to 18 of the said judgment need to be referred as under:-
"10. Suffice it to say, the High Court while allowing the consumers' writ petitions and, in consequence, setting aside of the appellate order passed under Section 127 of the Act by the appellate authority rightly remanded the case to the assessing authority for making provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Act and then to take recourse under Section 127 of the Act for filing appeal, if need arises. We do not find any reason to disturb these directions which, in our opinion, are in conformity with the scheme of the Act.
11. So far as the applicability of the provisions of the new Electricity Act, 2003 to the case at hand is concerned, though some doubts were raised about its applicability but, in our opinion, it has no substance. In our opinion, the 2003 Act does apply to the facts of this case because the 2003 Act came into force on 10-6-2003 whereas the inspection of the meter installed in Respondent 2's factory premises was made by the sleuths of the Board on 2-8-2003.
12. It is, therefore, clear that the Board made an inspection of the meter after the 2003 Act came into force. The cause of action, therefore, accrued to the Board after the 2003 Act came into force 27 2025:JHHC:30671-DB and, therefore, the case of Respondent 2 was required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the 2003 Act.
13. Since the action was taken by the Board against Respondent 2 (consumer) under Section 126 of the Act by raising the provisional/final bill and, therefore, Respondent 2 was well within their right to file an appeal against such demand under Section 127 of the Act before the appellate authority.
14. We cannot, therefore, accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that Respondent 2 had no right of appeal under Section 127 of the Act to challenge the order/demand raised under Section 126 of the Act. In other words, Respondent 2 had right of appeal under Section 127 of the Act to challenge the order passed under Section 126 of the Act.
15. Indeed, once the Act is held applicable to the controversy in question, a fortiori, all the provisions of the Act would then be applicable to the case which would obviously include a provision which provides a right of appeal to the appellate authority.
16. In the scheme of the Act, we find that Section 126 of the Act deals with assessment of electricity charges payable by such person (consumer) for unauthorised use of electricity whereas Section 135 deals with the cases of theft of electricity. In other words, once the Board detects the case of unauthorised use of electricity by any consumer, in such event, the Board gets a cause of action to proceed against such person/consumer under Section 126 or/and 135 under the Act. Both Sections 126 and 135 are independent in all respects and provide different kind of liability and consequences. One involves monetary liability (Section 126) whereas the other involves criminal liability (Section 135). The Board is, therefore, at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Section 126 or/and 135 of the Act against such person/consumer as provided therein in accordance with law.
17. In these circumstances, if the Board initiates any action against any person/consumer, then such action must be brought to its logical end in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act after affording an opportunity to such person/consumer.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and subject to the observations, we find no merit in the appeals, which fail and are accordingly dismissed. As a consequence to the dismissal of the appeals, the authorities are directed to comply with the directions 28 2025:JHHC:30671-DB of the High Court and pass consequential order under Section 126 of the Act in accordance with law in the case of consumers (respondents) within three months from the date of this order."
45. It is evident from the aforesaid that the proceeding so initiated under section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is allowed to have parallelly having no bearing with the final proceeding. It is also settled that if there is an assessment under section 126 of the Act of 2003, then a consumer is to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under section 127 of the Act of 2003.
46. Thus, it is evident that that the provision of sections 126 and 127 are self-contained Code and if any final assessment has been made under section 126 of the Act of 2003, then the first remedy available to the consumer against the final assessment to challenge the same before the Forum created under section 127 of the Act of 2003.
47. It is also, thus, evident that merely because the reference of an F.I.R is there, at the time of making inspection by the inspecting team it does not mean that the order of final assessment made under section 126 of the Act of 2003 cannot be challenged under section 127.
48. Since, the law has been laid down that once the proceeding under section 126 has been commenced and concluded by way of order of final assessment, then there is no dispute as per the settled position of law that the said final assessment order is to be challenged before the authority under section 127 of the Act of 2003.
49. Adverting to the factual aspect of L.P.A No.385 of 2015 which has already been referred hereinabove wherefrom it is evident that an inspection was made at the premises of the appellant company on 29 2025:JHHC:30671-DB 27.05.2008, on alleged theft of electricity and loss was assessed to the Board in the tune of rupees 87.62 lacs and subsequently a final assessment has been made in which a sum of Rs. 40,31,490 lacs have been calculated as the amount payable to the appellant company.
50. Thereafter company preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2805 of 2008 which was disposed of with direction to the petitioner company to pay the 50% of the total assessed amount within one week of the date of the order. The Court, has also observed that in the event the appellant forum records a finding that the amount payable by the writ petitioner therein is less than what has been assessed by the JSEB and if any excess amount has already been paid by the consumer, beyond what is due, the JSEB (now JUVNL) shall forthwith refund the excess amount to the petitioner therein.
51. It needs to refer herein that the aforesaid has not been challenged by the JSEB (now JUVNL).
52. Thereafter the said assessment which has been made by the competent authority has been challenged by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to the authority under section 127 of the Act of 2003 and an order has been passed on 15.10.2008 in Appeal No.10 of 2008. The said order has been challenged by filing the writ petition by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now, JUVNL).
53. The ground has been agitated therein that since the F.I.R. has been instituted and, as such, no appeal could have been entertained by the authority under the provision of section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 30
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
54. The same has been entertained by the learned Single Judge who has quashed the order passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.10 of 2008 by taking the ground that in the case of theft of electricity, the appellate authority should have adverted to the question of jurisdiction and since the order has been passed without jurisdiction is not sustainable.
55. The question has been raised by Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sonal Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that once a bill has been served upon the appellant company and the same has been revise, the consequences of exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Authority under Section 126 of the Act 2003 would be that the consumer is entitled to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 127 of Act 2003, therefore the order impugned passed by the writ Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
56. It has further been submitted by referring to the order passed in L.P.A No.440 of 2015 that the exact view has been taken by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition being WP (C) NO. 3986 of 2009.
57. We, on consideration of the submission made on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, is of the view that what has been argued by him cannot be disputed in view of the law already settled to the effect that in a case of final assessment only remedy available to the aggrieved consumer is to prefer an appeal under section 127 of the Act of 2003 irrespective of institution of F.I.R. which is altogether a different proceeding.
31
2025:JHHC:30671-DB
58. It requires to refer herein that the same view has been taken by the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 19.11.2014 in W.P(C) No.3986 of 2009 has categorically observed that if order of provisional assessment is served upon assessee and thereafter a final order of assessment is passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 then against order of final assessment an appeal will lie under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in pursuance thereto, the authority concerned has passed an order on 28.07.2008, therefore, the said order has been refused to interfere with.
59. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6105 of 2008 which is the subject matter of L.P.A No.385 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.
60. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed.
61. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
L.P.A No.440 of 2015:
62. The instant Letters Patent Appeal on the basis of the discussions so made in L.P.A No.385 of 2015 stands dismissed.
63. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
L.P.A No. 406 of 2015:
64. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed in W.P(C) No.1819 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has 32 2025:JHHC:30671-DB allowed the writ petition and the appellant-Company (JUVNL) is directed to refund the amount within a period of four weeks
65. It is evident from the brief facts the instant appeal which had already been referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner M/s Dew Concrete Ties Pvt. Limited is engaged in business of manufacturing concrete sleeper for the Indian Railways. The H/T Industrial connection to the petitioner-firm was inspected by the respondent regularly and the last inspection was conducted by the respondent no. 4 on 30.01.2006 when after examining L.V.-cum-C.T. Box, the respondent no. 4 gave satisfaction certificate.
66. It has been averred that eight days thereafter, a surprise inspection was conducted on 07.02.2006 in which both the seal L.V.-cum- C.T. Box were found broken. Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged on 07.02.2006 and the loss to the Board was arbitrarily assessed at Rs. 34 lakhs.
67. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 926 of 2006 challenging the provisional order of assessment.
68. The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs and to move before Vidyut Upbhokta Sikayat Niwarayn Forum of Jharkhand State Electricity Board but the Forum declined to hear the matter on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction thereafter the petitioner approached this Court against in W.P.(C) No. 2885 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2008 directing the petitioner to file representation to the Superintending Engineer who would assess the actual loss caused to the Board. A further direction was also issued to the Superintending Engineer to pass appropriate order of adjustment/refund, 33 2025:JHHC:30671-DB if the amount paid by the petitioner was in excess of the actual loss assessed by the Superintending Engineer.
69. Consequent thereto the Superintending Engineer passed the assessment order dated 28.07.2008, assessing the total loss to the Electricity Board at Rs. 11,12,600/-.
70. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation for refund of excess amount as directed by the Hon'ble High Court however, no order was passed on the representation of the petitioner.
71. It has been taken note by this Court in the order dated 18.05.2016 (passed in the instant appeal) that against the demand raised on conclusion of the proceeding under section 126 of the Act of 2003, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been deposited for the purpose of restoration of electricity power supply.
72. It has been contended that the final assessment order has been made by the assessing officer in view of the provision of the section 126(5) of the Act of 2003 which came to Rs.11,12,600/-.
73. The said order has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P(C) No.3986 of 2009 which is the subject matter of L.P.A No.440 of 2015.
74. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the issue of refund is to be considered and the decision of refund is to be taken depending upon the outcome of L.P.A No.440 of 2015, the subject matter of order passed in W.P(C) No.3986 of 2009.
75. It has been submitted that if the final assessment has attained its finality which ultimately depends upon the outcome of L.P.A No.440 of 34 2025:JHHC:30671-DB 2015, then the writ petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 30,00,000.00 - Rs.11,12,600.00, i.e. Rs.18,87,400.00.
76. The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the issue of refund will depend upon the final outcome of L.P.A No.440 of 2015. It has been submitted that the said L.P.A No.440 of 2015 has also been heard today in which the order has been reserved. Analysis:
77. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have appreciated their arguments.
78. The fact about refund is the main issue in the present appeal.
79. The final assessment as per the order passed under section 126 of the Act of 2003 has been assessed to be Rs.11,12,600/-.
80. The said order has been challenged by filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No.3986 of 2009 and the said writ petition has been dismissed having been challenged by the JUVNL by filing L.P.A No.440 of 2015.
81. We have decided the L.P.A No.440 of 2015 hereinabove by dismissing the said appeal, meaning thereby, the final assessment as has been assessed to the tune of Rs.11,12,600/- has attained its finality.
82. The moment the said amount has attained its finality, the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the said amount, i.e,, Rs.30,00,000.00 - Rs.11,12,600.00 which comes to Rs.18,87,400.00.
83. The amount of Rs. 18,87,400.00/- has been directed to be deposited before the learned Registrar General of this Court through the Bank Draft as would be evident from the order dated 18.05.2016 passed in the present proceeding, the extract of the said order is being referred hereunder as:
35
2025:JHHC:30671-DB "I.A. No. 1093 of 2015 in L.P.A. No. 406 of 2015
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 206 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is an error in filing the memo of this interlocutory application instead of 117 days, there is a delay of 206 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph nos. 5,6 and 7, thereof there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 206 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1093 of 2016 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 406 of 2015 with L.P.A. No. 440 of 2015
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued out the case at the length and submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the respondent in which a figure of Rs. 34 lacks has been mentioned as a prima facie assessment or provisional assessment, but, by mistake the officer of the appellant has assessed the loss at the Rs.11,12,600/- under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This order passed by the officer of the appellant has been challenged in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3986 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, L.P.A. No. 440 of 2015 is preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent has also preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1819 of 2010 for reconnection of the electricity.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent-consumer had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 926 of 2006 in which a figure of Rs. 34 lacks referred in the F.I.R., was under challenge because he wanted to reconnection of the electricity and therefore, in the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court has passed a conditional order to deposit Rs. 30 lacks vide order dated 13.04.2006.
8. This amount of Rs. 30 lacks has already been deposited by the respondents and thereafter the respondent has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1819 of 2016 for getting refund of the balance amount because now the officer of the appellant has assessed the liability of the respondent-consumer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 at Rs. 11, 12,600/- and therefore, out of Rs. 30 lacks the aforesaid amount may be deducted and the remaining amount of Rs. 18,87,400/- may be refunded and this writ petition preferred by the respondent-consumer 36 2025:JHHC:30671-DB has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th November, 2014 and, hence the original respondent has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A.No. 406 of 2015.
9. It appears that the prima facie the appellant Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. is unable to justify the figure of Rs. 34 lacks as referred in the F.I.R., filed against the respondent. The figure of Rs. 34 lacks cannot come in the mind in this appellant from heaven and sky. The officers of the appellant are bound to give calculation of Rs. 34 lacks. Nothing is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, justifying the figure of Rs. 34 lacks, as referred in the F.I.R., filed against the respondent-
consumer. Moreover, assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is only up to Rs. 11,12,600/-and hence the learned Single Judge has passed an order for refund of Rs. 18,87400/-.
10. We therefore, direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 18, 87, 400/- before this Court on and before the next date of hearing.
11. Counsel for the appellant is seeking time to justify the figure of Rs. 34 lacks, as referred in the F.I.R. The amount shall be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court through Bank Draft. If the amount is not deposited on or before the next date of hearing, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Board, J.S.E.B, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum shall remain personally present this Court on the next date of hearing at 10.30 A.M., (This designation of the officer is given by the counsel of the appellant).
12. The matter is adjourned to be enlisted on 15.06.2016."
84. On the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is held to be entitled to get the said amount, i.e, Rs.18,87,400.00. Admittedly, the petitioner (respondent herein) has already deposited Rs.30,00,000/- before the authority concerned by virtue of the order passed in W.P(C) No.926 of 2006. Further, it has come on the record that the assessment made under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is only up to Rs.11,12,600/-, therefore, the petitioner (respondent herein) is entitled for refund of Rs.18,87,400/-.
85. It is evident from the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by this Court which has already been referred and quoted hereinabove that the appellant- 37
2025:JHHC:30671-DB JUVNL had deposited Rs.18,87,400/- on the direction of this Court before the learned Registrar General of this Court and the same has been deposited by way of Bank Draft.
86. As such, this Court is of the view that the amount deposited with the learned Registrar General of this Court is to be disbursed in favour of the writ petitioner (respondent herein).
87. In view of the above, the learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to disburse the said amount along with the accrued interest thereon.
88. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present LPA being L.P.A No. 406 of 2015 is hereby dismissed.
89. In view of the above, the Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A No.440 of 2015 and L.P.A No.406 of 2015 stand dismissed and L.P.A No.385 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of as such.
90. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Sudhir Dated:26th/09/2025 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR Uploaded on 27.09.2025 38