Excess electricity use beyond sanctioned load is unauthorised use under Section 126, with only final assessment appealable.

Consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned and connected load was treated as unauthorised use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, because the excess drawal altered the applicable category and tariff and breached supply terms. Section 126 and Section 127 were described as a complete assessment framework for cases short of theft under Section 135, so liability could follow under the assessment regime. A provisional assessment was not appealable under Section 127; only the final assessment order was. Although writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred by alternative remedy, a court should ordinarily confine itself to any jurisdictional challenge and remit the assessment dispute to the competent authority for consideration of objections and fresh final assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned and connected load amounts to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003; (ii) Whether a notice-cum-provisional assessment under Section 126 is appealable and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 when a statutory remedy under Section 127 is available.

Issue (i): Whether consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned and connected load amounts to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Analysis: The expression "unauthorised use of electricity" in Section 126 was construed purposively and in the context of the scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003, the supply regulations, and the agreement governing supply. The Court held that Section 126 and Section 127 form a complete assessment framework for cases not amounting to theft under Section 135. Excess drawal beyond the sanctioned load, resulting in change of category and tariff and breach of the terms of supply, falls within the meaning of unauthorised use, including the situation covered by Explanation (b)(iv).

Conclusion: Consumption of electricity in excess of sanctioned load is unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the consumer is liable to assessment under that provision.

Issue (ii): Whether a notice-cum-provisional assessment under Section 126 is appealable and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 when a statutory remedy under Section 127 is available.

Analysis: The Court held that only a final order of assessment under Section 126(3) is appealable under Section 127, and a provisional assessment is not. While availability of an alternative remedy does not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, interference under Article 226 is ordinarily unwarranted where the matter concerns assessment merits and factual controversy. The High Court could examine a jurisdictional challenge, but it ought not to determine the assessment dispute itself and should remit the matter to the assessing authority for decision on objections and final assessment.

Conclusion: The provisional assessment was not appealable, and the High Court should not have travelled into the merits of assessment after entertaining the jurisdictional challenge.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the writ relief was displaced, and the matter was sent back for fresh assessment by the competent authority after hearing objections in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Excess consumption beyond sanctioned load constitutes unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and where a writ court finds a jurisdictional issue in such a provisional assessment, it should ordinarily remit the matter to the assessing authority rather than decide the assessment merits.

---