Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (a deemed university under the UGC Act, 1956) and its affiliated institutions, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging orders dated 27.12.2013, 05.03.2014, and 06.02.2018 passed by the respondents, Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited and its officers. The orders demanded back billing charges of over Rupees Two Crore for alleged unauthorized use of electricity. The petitioners had obtained a power supply connection under HT-22 category vide application dated 16.10.1998. The respondents issued a provisional assessment order on 27.12.2013 alleging unauthorized use, followed by a final assessment on 05.03.2014, and a subsequent order on 06.02.2018 confirming the demand. The petitioners contended that the orders were passed without proper notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without any evidence of theft or unauthorized use. They also argued that the demand was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, as it pertained to a period beyond two years. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners should have availed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Act. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the impugned orders were patently illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The court noted that the respondents failed to provide any material to show that the petitioners had unauthorizedly used electricity. The court also observed that the demand was barred by limitation. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to refund any amounts collected from the petitioners with interest at 6% per annum from the date of collection till payment. The writ petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Unauthorized Use of Electricity - Back Billing - Sections 126, 127, 135, 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - The petitioners, a deemed university and its institutions, challenged provisional and final assessment orders demanding over Rupees Two Crore for alleged unauthorized use of electricity - The court held that the impugned orders were passed without proper notice, without considering the petitioners' objections, and without any evidence of theft or unauthorized use - The court also noted that the demand was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Act as it pertained to a period beyond two years - Held that the orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to refund any amounts collected with interest (Paras 1-10). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners should have availed the remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - The court held that the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially when the impugned orders are patently illegal, without jurisdiction, or violate principles of natural justice - Held that the writ petitions are maintainable (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders demanding back billing charges for alleged unauthorized use of electricity are sustainable in law and on facts, and whether the writ petitions are maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.12.2013, 05.03.2014, and 06.02.2018 are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund any amounts collected from the petitioners pursuant to these orders with interest at 6% per annum from the date of collection till payment.
Law Points
- Electricity Act
- 2003
- Section 126
- Section 127
- Section 135
- Section 56
- Limitation for back billing
- Natural justice
- Provisional assessment
- Final assessment
- Appeal remedy
- Writ jurisdiction alternative remedy
