Gauhati High Court Emphasizes Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies in Technical Dispute Over Alleged Unauthorized Electricity Use by Tea Factory; Declines to Interfere Under Article 226, Directs Appeal Under Section 127 Electricity Act, 2003

Court’s Decision

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that statutory remedies under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, should be exhausted before seeking relief under Article 226. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned appellate forum, noting the technical and factual nature of the dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, a tea estate owner, faced a final electricity assessment order on July 21, 2016, and a bill of ₹27,37,920, based on the alleged unauthorized use of electricity. During a routine inspection by Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), the connected load was reported to be 839.25 KW, which exceeded the authorized 418 KW. APDCL attributed this excess load to new machinery installations on the petitioner’s premises, which the petitioner allegedly failed to disclose, thereby resulting in a violation of electricity use regulations.

Issues

The central issues pertained to:

1. Whether the petitioner’s undisclosed machinery installations amounted to unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. Whether the petitioner was obliged to exhaust the alternative appellate remedy available under Section 127 before invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that mere installation of additional equipment, without exceeding the contracted demand, did not constitute unauthorized electricity use. Citing previous cases, the petitioner contended that unauthorized use under Section 126 required actual, unapproved consumption beyond the contracted demand, not simply potential consumption. The petitioner also argued that APDCL’s calculations failed to reflect the actual usage and relied on incorrect assessments.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, APDCL, argued that the unauthorized connection of additional machinery to the distribution mains justified the assessment under Section 126. Furthermore, APDCL insisted on the application of the multiplying factor based on the increased load capacity due to the newly connected machinery. APDCL also pointed out that the petitioner had an effective remedy under Section 127, which mandates pre-depositing half of the assessed amount, and argued that this appellate route was suitable for addressing the petitioner’s technical objections.

Analysis of the Law

The court examined Section 126 and Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 126 relates to assessment in cases of unauthorized electricity use, whereas Section 127 provides an appellate mechanism for aggrieved consumers to contest such assessments. The court highlighted judicial precedents favoring the exhaustion of alternative remedies in statutory matters before invoking Article 226.

Precedent Analysis

The court referenced M/s Shiv Alloys Steel v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd., where it was held that the appellate authority under Section 127 could adjudicate both technical and factual issues in electricity disputes. Additionally, in Dunlop India Ltd. and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, the Supreme Court underscored the principle of exhausting statutory remedies, especially in revenue-related cases.

Court’s Reasoning

The court noted that factual verification and technical evaluation were necessary to determine whether the additional load amounted to unauthorized use under the Electricity Act. The court found that the case did not involve a violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, thus not warranting interference under Article 226. The statutory remedy provided under Section 127 was deemed adequate and appropriate for resolving the petitioner’s claims.

Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition, underscoring that the petitioner should pursue an appeal under Section 127. This route would enable the appellate authority to address both the technical and factual aspects central to the dispute.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory remedies, especially those capable of handling technical and factual disputes, should be pursued before resorting to constitutional remedies. It emphasizes the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in matters where the statutory framework offers sufficient recourse, especially in revenue and regulatory contexts.