Supreme Court lays down guidelines for restoring electricity cut off over theft allegations

Deciding two appeals together, the Supreme Court addressed when a High Court can order restoration of an electricity connection disconnected for alleged theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, while a provisional assessment under Section 126 is challenged. The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan held that electricity is an essential commodity whose deprivation can have serious consequences, so a High Court may use its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect a consumer from arbitrary disconnection. But because theft necessarily involves mens rea, courts must take a circumspect, case-by-case approach rather than a uniformly liberal one.

Where a provisional assessment is prima facie arbitrary, a High Court may, for recorded reasons, order restoration on the consumer depositing not less than 50% of the demanded amount — the same threshold Section 127(2) sets for filing a statutory appeal against a final assessment. The Court upheld orders restoring supply on a 50% deposit in both appeals, while clarifying that any restoration is subject to the outcome of a Section 127 appeal and, if a criminal prosecution follows, to the final determination of civil liability by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act. The appeals were otherwise dismissed, with one appeal concerning a remand kept open on its own facts.