9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (10) TMI 586 - SC - Indian LawsWherever the consumer consumes electricity in excess of the maximum of the contracted load, would the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act be attracted on its true scope and interpretation? Whether the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in interfering with the provisional order of assessment/show cause notice dated 25th July, 2009, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Was the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not maintainable because of a statutory alternative remedy being available under Section 127 of the 2003 Act?
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for excess electricity consumption. 2. Justification of High Court's interference with the provisional assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for Excess Electricity Consumption: - Interpretation: The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 126 should be interpreted in a manner that ensures the workability of the statute and achieves its legislative purpose. It rejected a narrow and literal interpretation in favor of a purposive interpretation that considers the context and objectives of the 2003 Act. - Distinction between Sections 126 and 135: The Court clarified that Section 126 deals with unauthorized use of electricity without criminal intent, while Section 135 addresses theft of electricity with dishonest intent. Excess consumption of electricity falls under Section 126, not Section 135. - Ambit and Scope of Section 126: The Court stated that unauthorized use of electricity includes consumption beyond the sanctioned load. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent misuse and ensure revenue recovery. The term "unauthorized use" is not limited to the examples provided in the Explanation to Section 126 but includes any violation of terms and conditions of supply. - Assessment and Computation: The assessment for unauthorized use should be for the entire period of such use or, if indeterminable, for the 12 months preceding the inspection. The assessment rate is twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category. 2. Justification of High Court's Interference with the Provisional Assessment Order under Article 226: - The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not interfere with provisional assessment orders under Section 126 unless there is a jurisdictional issue. The High Court should have remanded the matter to the assessing authority for a final assessment after addressing the jurisdictional challenge. - The High Court transgressed its jurisdictional limitations by determining the factual controversy and the validity of the demand, which falls within the exclusive domain of the assessing officer. 3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition before the High Court under Article 226: - The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, but it should be exercised with caution. The High Court should entertain writ petitions only in exceptional cases involving pure questions of law or jurisdictional issues. - The Court noted that no appeal lies against a provisional assessment order under Section 126(2) and (3). Only a final assessment order under Section 126(3) is appealable under Section 127. The respondent should have filed objections to the provisional assessment instead of approaching the High Court directly. Conclusion: 1. Excess consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned load constitutes unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The High Court erred in interfering with the provisional assessment order and should have remanded the matter to the assessing authority. 3. The writ petition was maintainable on jurisdictional grounds, but the High Court should have limited its interference to jurisdictional issues and remanded the case for a final assessment. Final Decision: - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the assessing officer to pass a final order of assessment after providing an opportunity for the respondent to file objections. - The appeal was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
