S.135(1A) Electricity Act | Restoration Of Supply Line Conditional On Deposit Or Payment Of Assessed Amount Or Electricity Charges: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the computation of assessed electricity charges, emphasising that restoration of electricity supply must be contingent on payment of the assessed amount as per Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Court observed that the petitioner manipulated the system to restore the electricity supply without full payment of the assessed charges.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, noted, “A bare reading of the third proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 135 indicates that the restoration of supply line of electricity shall be only on the deposit or payment of the assessed amount or the electricity charges, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We may further record that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to challenge the computation, inasmuch as, on the presentation of the appeal, as per Section 127(2), the petitioner would be required to deposit half of the assessed amount.”

“The challenge to the assessment made by the Electricity Department as per the formula prescribed in clause 7.7 as contained in Section 7 of the Electricity Code, 2015 therefore, cannot be entertained in the instant appeal. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner at the time of of making assessment in accordance with the provisions of clause 7.7 of the Section 7 of the Electricity Code, 2015 is, therefore, liable to be turned down,” the bench added.

Background

The appeal was directed against a 2020 judgment by a Single Judge of the High Court, who had previously disposed of the writ petition without delving into its merits. The Single Judge's order had directed the appellant to seek remedy through the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to this provision, the petitioner would need to deposit half of the assessed amount when filing an appeal, a requirement the petitioner had failed to meet. The Single Judge also noted that the appellate authority might consider the restoration of electricity supply during the pendency of the appeal if the petitioner complied with Section 127(2).

The petitioner contended that the computation of the assessed electricity charges was conducted without providing an opportunity for a hearing, arguing that the final bills were prepared without the appellant's involvement. The respondent, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, countered by presenting evidence of electricity theft, including tampering with the meter and unauthorised use of electricity. An FIR was filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

The Court noted that Section 135 (1A) mandates the immediate disconnection of electricity upon detection of theft.

The Court observed, “the petitioner, by playing trick with the department, has succeeded in getting restoration of electricity supply without making deposit of the entire assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As brought before us, as per the undertaking given by the petitioner in a duly notarised format, on 21.08.2020, the total assessed amount was to be paid in four installments, the first 50% was paid by a Demand Draft dated 21.08.2020 itself.”“For the remaining amount, three cheques dated 21.09.2020, 21.10.2020 and 21.11.2020 were submitted by the petitioner. However, before the second cheque could be deposited, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal concealing the said fact. Though in the order dated 16.09.2020, it is recorded that the electricity supply has been restored with the petitioner, but the factual statements in this regard are missing from the memo of the appeal,” the Court further observed.

Thus, not finding any good ground to accept the arguments of the advocate for the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner while making assessment of the energy consumption by unauthorized means, the Court held, “It is more than evident that the petitioner has adopted ways and means to get away from making deposits of the assessed amount towards unauthorised consumption of electricity and has succeeded in getting restoration of electricity by playing tricks.”

Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Ms Mousumi Mukherjee D.O Shri Manab Kumar Mukherjee Versus Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited(Bharuch Division) & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 113

Click Here To Download The Judgement