MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.V. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ANR. versus THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ANR.
[2018] 2 S.C.R. 537, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO.
LTD.
v.
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3370 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND  ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Electricity Act, 2003 – ss. 126, 127 – Respondent No.2 are
consumers of electricity, which is supplied to them by the State
Electricity Board – The sleuths of the Board visited the respondent
no.2’s factory and replaced electricity meter with a new meter –
Sleuths again visited the factory and on inspection found some
tampering with the meter seals, this led to making of provisional
assessment by the appellant u/s.126 for unauthorised use of
electricity – Writ Petition – During the pendency of the writ petition,
final assessment order was passed against the respondent no.2,
however, same was quashed and set aside and matter remanded to
the Authority – Again, Authority passed final order against the
respondent no.2 – Appeal disposed of by the Appellate Authority –
Writ petitions filed, both by the Board and the respondent no.2-
consumer – High Court remanded the case to the Assessing Authority
and directed the parties to abide by the provisions of ss.126/127 –
Held: There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court, which is sustainable on facts – High Court while allowing
the consumers’ writ petitions and, in consequence, setting aside of
the Appellate order passed u/s.127 of the Act by the Appellate
Authority rightly remanded the case to the Assessing
Authority for
making provisional assessment u/s.126 and then to take recourse
u/s.127 of the Act for filing appeal, if need arises – Directions of
the High Court in conformity with the scheme of the Act – Thus, the
authorities directed to comply with the directions of the High Court
and pass consequential order u/s.126.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  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
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 537
537
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
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.  There is no reason to disturb these
directions which are in conformity with the scheme of the Act.
[Para 12] [541-E-F]
2. 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 it has no
substance.  The Act 2003 does apply to the facts of this case
because the Act 2003 came into force on 10.06.2003 whereas
the inspection of the Meter installed in respondent No.2’s factory
premises was made by the sleuths of the Board on 02.08.2003.
It is, therefore, clear that the Board made an inspection of the
Meter after the Act 2003 came into force.  The cause of action,
therefore, accrued to the Board after the Act 2003 came into
force and, therefore, the case of respondent No.2 was required
to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Act of 2003. [Paras 13, 14] [541-F-H; 542-A]
3. Since the action was taken by the Board against
respondent No.2 (consumer) under Section 126 of the Act by
raising the provisional/final bill and, therefore, respondent No.2
was well within their right to file an appeal against such demand
under Section 127 of the Act before the Appellate
Authority. [Para
15]  [542-B]
4.  There is no merit in the submission of the Board that
respondent No.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 No.2 had right of appeal
under Section 127 of the Act to challenge the order passed under
Section 126 of the Act.  [Para 16] [542-C]
5.  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.  In
the scheme of the Act, Section 126 of the Act deals with
assessment of electricity charges payable by such person
(consumer) for unauthorized use of electricity whereas Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
135 deals with the cases of theft of electricity. In other words,
once the Board detects the case of unauthorized 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.  [Paras 17-20] [542-
D-H]
6.  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. [Para 21] [542-G-H]
7.  As a consequence to the dismissal of the appeals, the
authorities are directed to comply with the directions of the High
Court and pass consequential order under Section 126 of the Act
in accordance with law in the case of consumers (respondents).
[Para 23] [543-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3370
of 2007
From the Order dated 04.05.2007 of the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition Nos. 5858 of 2005.
WITH
C. A. Nos.
3377-3381, 3376 and 3371-3375 of 2007
A. S. Bhasme and Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Adv., for the Appellant.
Ms. V. Mohana Sr. Adv., Satyajit Desai, Mehmood Umar Faruqui,
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Ms. S. Ramamani, Arun
Kumar Beriwal, Rahul Chitnis, Aditya A. Pande and Chander Shekhar
Ashri,  Advs., for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are directed
against the common final judgment and order dated 04.05.2007 passed
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO.
LTD. v. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Writ Petition Nos.5858 of 2005, 2821, 2705, 2706/2006, 6219/2005, 721/
2006, 3737/2005, 3935/2005, 1386, 1389, 1586 & 2060/2006 whereby
the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein
and partly allowed the writ petitions filed by respondent-Consumer.
2. The controversy involved in these appeals is short as it would
be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts pertaining to C.A.
No.3370 of 2007 were taken into account.  Respondent No. 2 is running
Oil Mill having cotton seeds crushing activity at Akola (Maharashtra).
They are consumers of electricity, which is supplied to them by the State
Electricity Board - the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as “the
Board”)
4. On 17.03.2003, the sleuths of the Board visited respondent
No.2’s factory and replaced Meter No.356, installed in the factory with
a new Meter bearing No. MSE 04821.  On 02.08.2003, the sleuths again
visited the factory and on inspection found some tampering with the
Meter seals. This led to making of provisional assessment by the appellant
under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”) for
the unauthorized use of electricity. The Board accordingly sent a
provisional bill to respondent No.2 followed by revised provisional bill
dated 16.08.2003 for Rs.21,38,660/-.
5. Respondent No.2, felt
aggrieved, filed a writ petition and
questioned the legality and correctness of the provisional bill. During the
pendency of the writ petition, the final assessment order was issued to
respondent No.2 on 24.11.2003.  However, the High Court quashed and
set aside that order and remanded the matter to the Authority for giving
an opportunity to respondent No.2 while passing the final order.  It was
done and accordingly final order dated 29-30.04.2004 demanding a sum
of Rs.62,52,632/- was passed by the Authority against respondent No.2.
6. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent No.2 under
Section 127 of the Act before the Appellate Authority.  The Appellate
Authority by order dated 15.04.2005 disposed of the appeal giving rise
to filing of the writ petition by the Board as also by the consumer
(respondent No.2) in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.  The
other similarly situated consumers also filed writ petitions before the
High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
7. By impugned common judgment, the High Court dismissed the
writ petitions filed by the Board whereas partly allowed the writ petitions
filed by the consumers.  While setting aside the Appellate Order, the
High Court remanded the case to the Assessing Authority and directed
the parties to abide by the provisions of Section 126/127 of the Act.
8. It is against this judgment, the Board alone has felt aggrieved
and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
9. Heard Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant and
Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of the case, we do not consider it necessary to examine the
legal questions which, according to the learned counsel for the Board,
arise in these appeals and leave them open for being decided in
appropriate case, if they really arise and found necessary to decide the
lis.
11.Leave aside the legal questions, we find otherwise no reason
to interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court which, in our
opinion, is sustainable on facts.
12.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.
13.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 Act 2003 does apply to the facts of this case because
the Act 2003 came into force on 10.06.2003 whereas the inspection of
the Meter installed in respondent No.2’s factory premises was made by
the sleuths of the Board on 02.08.2003.
14. It is, therefore, clear that the Board made an inspection of the
Meter after the Act 2003 came into force.  The cause of action, therefore,
accrued to the Board after the Act 2003 came into force and, therefore,
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO.
v. APPELLATE AUTHORITY [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
the case of respondent No.2 was required to be dealt with in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2003.
15.Since the action was taken by the Board against respondent
No.2 (consumer) under Section 126 of the Act by raising the provisional/
final bill and, therefore, respondent No.2 was well within their right to
file an appeal against such demand under Section 127 of the Act before
the Appellate Authority.
16.We cannot, therefore, accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the Board that respondent No.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 No.2 had right of appeal
under Section 127 of the Act to challenge the order passed under Section
126 of the Act.
17.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.
18.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 unauthorized use of electricity whereas Section 135 deals
with the cases of theft of electricity.
19. In other words, once the Board detects the case of unauthorized
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).
20.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.
21.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.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
22. In view of the foregoing discussion and subject to the
observations, we find no merit in the appeals, which fail and are
accordingly dismissed.
23. As a consequence to the dismissal of the appeals, the
authorities are directed to comply with the directions 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.
Ankit Gyan                                                                                         Appeals dismissed.
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO.
v. APPELLATE AUTHORITY [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]