Electricity Theft | Restoration Possible On 50% Deposit: Bombay High Court

In a decisive intervention for consumer rights, the Bombay High Court has ruled that even in cases of alleged electricity theft, supply must be restored upon a partial deposit of the demanded amount if the assessment appears prima facie arbitrary. The Court bridged the procedural gap between theft and unauthorized use, ensuring that essential utilities cannot be withheld indefinitely pending final trial outcomes.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar adjudicated upon the writ petition challenging a Special Court order that had refused to restore power to a stone crusher plant despite a Court-appointed Electrical Inspector’s report suggesting a significantly lower liability than the licensee's demand.

Key Takeaways

Procedural Convergence Established

Determined that the assessment procedure under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 applies to theft cases under Section 135 for the limited purpose of determining the 'assessed amount' for restoration.

Curbing Executive Arbitrariness

Established that where a licensee’s demand spans 22 months despite statutory presumptions of 12 months, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to prevent arbitrary deprivation of essential services.

Interim Relief Guidelines

Clarified that a deposit of 50% of the demanded amount is a reasonable threshold for interim restoration, mirroring the statutory appeal requirements.

Legal Interplay: Section 126 and Section 135

The Bombay High Court delved deep into the interplay between different provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. While the Respondents argued that theft (Section 135) and unauthorized use (Section 126) operate in watertight compartments, the Court found a "convergence" at the stage of assessment. The Bench observed that "A prime reason for this convergence is that, all unauthorized use of electricity may not constitute theft of electricity but all the cases of theft of electricity may have the trappings of the unauthorized use of electricity... the expression 'the assessed amount' as used in the third proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 would have to be understood as the amount assessed in accordance with the procedure delineated in Section 126."

Referring to the precedent in Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & anr., Vs. Vaibhav Metal Crusher, the Bombay High Court noted that in the absence of a specific assessment procedure for theft, the mechanism provided for unauthorized use must be adopted to ensure principles of natural justice are met before a final determination of civil liability under Section 154(5).

Ratio

In cases of alleged electricity theft, the 'assessed amount' for the purpose of seeking restoration of supply under the third proviso to Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 must be determined following the procedure outlined in Sections 126 and 127. Where a provisional assessment is prima facie arbitrary or exceeds statutory presumptions regarding the period of theft, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may direct restoration of supply upon a deposit of at least 50% of the demanded amount.

Background

The Petitioner, who runs a stone crusher, faced disconnection in December 2024 after a flying squad of the MSEDCL alleged meter bypassing. A bill of Rs. 22,93,410 was raised for a theft period of 22 months. The Petitioner moved the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, where an Electrical Inspector was appointed as a Court Commissioner under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Inspector’s report found that the exact period of theft could not be established and suggested reckoning it for 6 months only.

Despite this, the Special Court refused interim restoration, stating civil liability could only be decided after a full trial. The Bombay High Court found this approach flawed, noting that waiting for a final trial would frustrate the purpose of the emergency provision for restoration of an essential commodity like electricity.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2573 OF 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:44885
Case Title: Sopan Haribhau Athshere v. The Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay P Shinde
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nikita Jacob, i/b K P Law Associates LLP; Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 7151