Navneet Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Navneet Singh, operating commercial premises "New Furniture World" and "All That Drives" in Jamshedpur, filed a writ petition seeking restoration of his electrical connection, which was disconnected by respondents 5-7 (Tata Steel UISL). The disconnection was based on an alleged unauthorized extension of electricity from "New Furniture World" to "All That Drives". The petitioner also challenged a show cause notice dated March 16, 2026, demanding Rs. 1,75,578/-, and a subsequent order dated May 8, 2026, which confirmed unauthorized use of electricity and the demand. The petitioner contended that both firms were permitted to operate from the same plot and premises covering 3500 sq. ft., and the electrical connection was intended for the entire area. The respondents argued that only one connection for "New Furniture World" (2400 sq. ft., 14 KW load) was sanctioned, and the extension to "All That Drives" was unauthorized.

Held

The Court held that since a final assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, had already been passed by the respondent-Tata Steel UISL regarding the alleged unauthorized use of electricity, the petitioner possessed an efficacious statutory remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to invoke this appellate provision. Furthermore, the Court directed that upon the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded amount, which is Rs. 87,789/-, with respondent-Tata Steel UISL, the electrical connection for the business premises "New Furniture World" would be restored within 24 hours of the deposit. This restoration would be subject to the final outcome of any appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court did not decide on the merits of the unauthorized use of electricity allegation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was engaged in unauthorized use of electricity for his commercial premises "New Furniture World" and "All That Drives" contrary to the sanctioned electrical connection, as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the electrical connection was sanctioned for the entire area of 3500 sq. ft. encompassing both "New Furniture World" and "All That Drives", and therefore, there was no unauthorized use of electricity. He argued that the authorities wrongly proceeded with the allegation of unauthorized use. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents (Tata Steel UISL) argued that only one electrical connection was sanctioned for "New Furniture World" with a specific load and area. They asserted that the electrical connection was extended in an unauthorized manner to "All That Drives", constituting unauthorized use of electricity, as evidenced by an inspection on March 12, 2026. They relied on the electricity bills and the sanction for "New Furniture World" as proof.