Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 26 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Two civil appeals were heard together: (i) Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr. (Appellants) vs. Vaibhav Metal Crusher (Respondent) arising from SLP (C) No. 17868/2024, and (ii) Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr. (Appellants) vs. Jamanbhai Nanajibhai Bhuva (Respondent) arising from SLP (C) No. 8778/2025.
  • In the first appeal, the respondent was issued a supplementary bill on 03‑01‑2024 demanding Rs 92,99,077.55 for alleged theft of electricity and Rs 23,45,845 as compounding charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The High Court, on 12‑02‑2024, allowed the respondent to deposit 50 % of the bill and ordered reconnection of supply.
  • The distribution licensee (appellant) filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 592 of 2024 challenging the High Court’s direction, arguing that (a) reconnection on 50 % deposit is unwarranted for theft, (b) no prior hearing is required for theft demands, and (c) the writ jurisdiction is inappropriate because civil liability for theft is to be determined by a Special Court under Sections 154(5)‑(6).
  • The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court disposed of the appeal on 25‑06‑2024, directing the respondent to file a reply to the notice, to raise objections before the Executive Engineer, and to treat the deposits made under the interim order as subject to the Engineer’s decision. It also clarified that an appeal under Section 127 is available if the decision is adverse.
  • In the second appeal, the respondent filed a writ application on 23‑01‑2024 challenging a supplementary bill dated 01‑06‑2023. The High Court again directed deposit of 50 % of the demanded amount and ordered reconnection, rejecting the licensee’s claim that a hearing is unnecessary.
  • The licensee filed LPA No. 474 of 2024 on similar grounds as above. The Division Bench remitted the matter to the Single Judge for fresh consideration, citing precedents (West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd. and SOUTHCO v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill).
  • The Supreme Court examined the interplay of Sections 126, 127, 135, 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Supply Code, 2015. It held that:
  • The “assessed amount” referred to in the third proviso of Section 135(1A) must be determined using the assessment procedure of Section 126, as no separate procedure exists for theft.
  • Assessment under Section 126 is permissible even when theft is alleged, and the consumer may object and appeal under Section 127.
  • The appellate authority’s order under Section 127 is final only for the purpose of restoring supply; the Special Court still determines civil liability under Section 154(5).
  • If the amount deposited exceeds the civil liability determined by the Special Court, the excess must be refunded as per Section 154(6).
  • The High Court was within its jurisdiction to direct restoration on deposit of at least 50 % of the provisional assessment, given that Section 127 requires half the assessed amount for an appeal.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court’s orders and clarifying that the High Court’s direction to allow reconnection on deposit of 50 % of the provisional assessment is lawful.
  • The Court ordered that the matter remitted in the second appeal be decided by the Single Judge in accordance with the clarified legal position.
  • All pending applications were disposed of.

Topics: Electricity theft, Assessment under Electricity Act