The Bombay High Court has issued an interim order directing restoration of electricity supply after a commercial establishment was disconnected within three days of receiving an alleged theft assessment bill. The judgment underscores the procedural safeguards required under the Electricity Act, 2003, even when theft is alleged, and reaffirms that livelihood rights cannot be suspended without due process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajan Shriniwas Viyanwar, operates two commercial establishments - "Hotel Orchid Lodging Boarding" and "New Wine Shop Bar and Restaurant" - at Kandri, Tal. Parseoni, District Nagpur. On 27.03.2026, officials of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. visited the premises and prepared an assessment bill alleging electricity theft of 39,175 units, amounting to Rs. 21,38,330.
Key Facts
- The theft assessment bill was prepared on 27.03.2026
- The bill was served upon the petitioner on 30.03.2026
- On 31.03.2026, the electricity supply to both establishments was disconnected
- The petitioner attempted to file a representation and offered to pay 10% of the alleged amount via cheque, but the representation was not accepted
- The petitioner was instructed to appear on 01.04.2026, but the disconnection occurred before this date
- No final assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had been passed at the time of disconnection
Procedural History
- 27.03.2026: Electricity theft assessment bill prepared by distribution company officials
- 30.03.2026: Assessment bill served on petitioner
- 31.03.2026: Electricity supply disconnected without opportunity to contest or pay
- 01.04.2026: Scheduled date for petitioner to appear before authorities (after disconnection)
- 02.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 2723 of 2026 filed before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate interim relief in the form of restoration of electricity supply to both establishments, pending final adjudication of the theft allegation. He also sought a direction that no further action be taken without a final assessment order under Section 126.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the electricity supplier could lawfully disconnect supply under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 without first issuing a final assessment order under Section 126, and whether such immediate disconnection, without affording any opportunity to contest the allegation, violates the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that while Section 135(1-A) permits immediate disconnection upon detection of theft, it does not override the requirement of a fair hearing under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The assessment bill was not a final order under Section 126, and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect the meter, challenge the calculation, or pay a portion of the alleged amount. The disconnection, occurring within three days of service and over a weekend, was arbitrary and caused severe economic harm to the petitioner and his employees.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a written reply. However, the court inferred that the respondent relied on Section 135(1-A) as authorizing immediate disconnection upon detection of theft, without the necessity of a prior adjudication or opportunity to be heard.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the statutory power granted to electricity suppliers under Section 135(1-A) to disconnect supply upon detection of theft. However, it emphasized that such power is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees of fairness.
"It is to be noted that in between there was Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, prima facie it is evident that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner either to pay the bill or to raise a dispute in respect of the alleged theft of electricity."
The Court held that an assessment bill, even if issued under Section 126, is not a final order unless passed by the Assessing Officer after considering objections. The absence of such an order meant the petitioner was deprived of his statutory right to contest the claim. The Court further noted that the disconnection had a direct and immediate impact on the livelihood of the petitioner and his employees, thereby engaging the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court distinguished between the power to disconnect for immediate safety or public interest and the punitive action of disconnecting based on an unchallenged, non-final assessment. It concluded that the action was prima facie arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded on interim relief. The Court directed the respondents to forthwith restore the electric connection to "Hotel Orchid Lodging Boarding" and "New Wine Shop Bar and Restaurant" at Kandri, Tal. Parseoni, District Nagpur. The Court issued notice to the respondents returnable on 15.04.2026, and ordered that the petitioner may serve the respondents by private mode in addition to regular service, with an affidavit of service to be filed by the next date. Failure to file the affidavit would require deposit of Rs. 500 into the Public Welfare Account.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Process Trumps Summary Disconnection
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 135(1-A) cannot be invoked to bypass the procedural safeguards under Section 126
- Any disconnection before a final assessment order is vulnerable to challenge under Article 14 and 21
- Courts will intervene where disconnection occurs within 72 hours of notice, especially over weekends
Livelihood Rights Are Non-Negotiable
- Disconnection of electricity to commercial establishments triggers constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(g)
- Even in cases of alleged theft, the impact on employees and business continuity must be weighed
- Offering partial payment (e.g., 10%) must be treated as a good faith attempt to resolve, not as an admission of guilt
Procedural Compliance Is Mandatory
- Electricity distribution companies must maintain a clear record of assessment, service, and opportunity to respond
- Assessment bills must be followed by a formal adjudication process before disconnection
- Failure to follow procedure renders the disconnection liable to be set aside, even if theft is later proven
