#Section 126

Bombay High Court rules that civil liability under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for unauthorized electricity use can be established through inspection reports and load discrepancies, without mandatory lab testing of meters. The judgment clarifies that criminal standards of proof do not apply to civil assessments, impacting energy providers and consumers facing tampering allegations.

HP High Court rules that provisional electricity assessments under Section 126 must be preceded by physical inspection and disclosure of MRI data to the consumer, failing which the assessment violates natural justice and is void. This precedent mandates procedural fairness in utility enforcement across India, impacting all electricity boards and consumers facing unauthorized usage allegations.

The Jharkhand High Court nullified a ₹12.54 crore electricity theft assessment against Jharkhand Ispat because the distributor failed to conduct the mandatory inspection under Section 126 and imposed charges not authorized by the Supply Code. This ruling reinforces that statutory compliance is non-negotiable in quasi-judicial tariff assessments, affecting all industrial consumers subject to DVC and similar utility audits.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that electricity suppliers cannot disconnect power without a final assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, even in cases of alleged theft. This protects the livelihood of businesses and employees by enforcing procedural fairness and preventing arbitrary deprivation of essential utility, reinforcing natural justice in public utility enforcement.

Bombay HC clarifies that penalties under Section 126 of the Electricity Act apply only to electricity consumed via unauthorized submeters after installation, excluding non-tariff components. The ruling caps liability to post-unauthorized usage, shielding consumers from retroactive penalties for the entire supply period.