Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 12 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd (Petitioner) vs. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd & Others (Respondents).
  • Background: Himadri Steel obtained a 3000 KVA HTSS electricity connection on 03‑07‑2006. A blast damaged the cubical metering unit; the fault was rectified on 16‑06‑2017, with the B‑phase CT replaced. Subsequent inspections were carried out on 26‑09‑2017, and an inspection report was prepared by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Chakulia PS (Case No. 30/2017).
  • Provisional Assessment: On the basis of the inspection report, the Respondents issued a Provisional Assessment Order on 29‑09‑2017 under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, determining a liability of Rs 3,23,71,524 for alleged theft of electricity.
  • High Court Proceedings: Himadri Steel filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6054/2017 in the Jharkhand High Court, challenging the disconnection and assessment. The Single Judge quashed the Provisional Assessment Order on 05‑09‑2018, finding the inspection report did not conclusively prove theft.
  • Division Bench Order: Respondents filed LPA No. 648/2018. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order on 08‑08‑2025, holding that the inspection report disclosed sufficient material for a theft allegation and that statutory remedies under Sections 126/127 were available, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.
  • Supreme Court Review: The present appeal challenges the Division Bench order. The Court examined the statutory framework of Sections 126, 127 (unauthorised use) and Section 135 (theft) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the 2015 Electricity Supply Code Regulations.
  • Key Legal Findings:
  • Section 135 requires proof of dishonest intent (mens rea) and a clear actus reus such as tampering, tapping, or illegal connection.
  • The inspection report of 26‑09‑2017 made no explicit allegation of theft, recorded only minor irregularities (e.g., welded nut, easy access to meter chamber) and noted that all seals were intact.
  • No seizure of material evidence was documented, violating Regulation 11.8.
  • A provisional assessment cannot be sustained where the inspection report does not expressly record theft or the officer’s subjective satisfaction of theft.
  • The Court affirmed that a provisional assessment under Section 135 is not appealable under Section 127; therefore, a writ petition is maintainable.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench order (LPA No. 648/2018) and restored the Single Judge’s order dated 05‑09‑2018, which had quashed the Provisional Assessment Order.
  • The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
  • All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Topics: Electricity Theft, Provisional Assessment, Judicial Review