Executive Engineer vs Menakshi Dudhande on 10 April, 2026

1 WP-11848-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11847 of 2013
ADDITONAL GENERAL MANAGER & EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (VIG)
Versus
M/S CRAFT INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Saxena Advocate through Video Conferencing with Shri
Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 17024 of 2011
M.P. MADHYA KHESTRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD AND OTHERS
Versus
KAILASH GWALANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Saxena Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

WRIT PETITION No. 17038 of 2011
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(VIG) CITY DIVISION
Versus
M/S TESLA TRANSMISSION CONTROL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Seth - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

WRIT PETITION No. 17043 of 2011

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:19:30 PM
2 WP-11848-2013
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(VIG) CITY DIVISION
Versus
M/S RISHI INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Saxena Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

WRIT PETITION No. 11848 of 2013
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
MENAKSHI DUDHANDE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P.Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

WRIT PETITION No. 14576 of 2013
ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
M/S SURENDRA INGINEERING AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Saxena Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

WRIT PETITION No. 5998 of 2014
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA V.V.CO.LTD.
Versus
M/S FITWELL FASTNERS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Saxena Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:19:30 PM
3 WP-11848-2013

WRIT PETITION No. 16483 of 2014
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (VIGILENCE) CITY DIVISION (SOUTH)
Versus
M/S PIONEER DELIGENCE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Aditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shantanoo Saxena Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER

Considering the similitude of the controversy involved in these bunch of writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P.No.11847/2013 shall be taken into consideration as a lead case.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to send for the entire records pertaining to facts and circumstances of the instant Writ Petition,

ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 authority dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure - P/6) is patently illegal and without any jurisdiction, in the interest of justice.

iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be: pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent no,.2 authority dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P/6), in the interest of justice.

iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ, order or direction deems fit and Proper to the facts and circumstances of the instant petition.

v) That this Hon'ble Court May kindly be pleased to award cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner,

2. It is the case of the petitioner Company that the petitioner company

4 WP-11848-2013 duly inspected the premises of respondent no.1 Company and said respondent was found to have been unauthorizedly using electricity of 38 HP against the sanctioned load of 24 HP. The petitioner company duly assessed said unauthorized use of electricity of Rs.1,62,934/- and issued notice for provisional assessment on 06.10.2010. The petitioner company after considering the objections of respondent no.1, issued final assessment order on 04.01.2011. The respondent no.1 challenged the final assessment by way of appeal before the respondent no.2 authority vide case no.17/2010-11. The respondent no.2 authority by its impugned order dated 22.09.2012 allowed the said appeal and quashed the final assessment order on the basis that said assessment has been made for a period of one year preceeding the date of inspection and petitioner Company is directed to make fresh assessment by ascertaining the actual period of unauthorized use.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the respondents that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order is not maintainable. It is submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority does not fall within the definition of subordinate courts or Tribunal under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Authority has been vested with the power to decide the appeal against the order passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act. The order passed by the appellate authority as per the provisions of the Electricity Act is final order, therefore, no writ petition would lie against the order passed by the appellate authority.

5 WP-11848-2013

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority has been constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act read with rules namely 'The Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004, framed by exercising the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 176 of the Electricity Act by the Central Government. Therefore, the Authority is a statutory authority and a quasi judicial authority to decide the dispute/appeal raised by the parties under section 127 of the Electricity Act and the rules framed thereunder.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards section 3 of the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004 which provides that for the purpose of appeal under section 127, the State Govt. may designate by notification published in the Official Gazette, a person who is a Gazetted Officer of the said Government or has been a District Judge or officer of equivalent rank, as appellate Authority. Learned counsel has also invited attention towards the definition clause of the Procedure for filing appeal before the Appellate Authority Regulation, 2004 in which the appellate authority has been defined as the authority prescribed by the Central Government under subsection (1) of section 127 read with clause (u) of sub-section (2) of section 176 of the Act. The other statutory provisions which are provided under the rules are in respect of maintaining appeal by filing necessary fees and governing the field of disposal of the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Jai Singh v. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385 , and

6 WP-11848-2013 it is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any authority which is exercising the power, which is statutory in nature and the dispute is decided in a judicial manner in accordance with the provisions of law, then it is a quasi judicial authority and falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The other grounds which have been raised by the petitioner is that the appellate authority has remitted back the matter to the Assessing Officer, but with a caveat that the assessment can be done only for the period for which unauthorized use has been done by the respondents. It is submitted that the provisions of section 126(5) of the Electricity Act provides that when the period of unauthorized use is not known, then the Assessing Officer would assess the usage for the entire preceding year.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not the case that the unauthorized use cannot be calculated or assessed by the Assessing Officer. As the matter has been relegated to the Assessing Officer, the parties have a fair chance to produce their material to clarify the period of unauthorized use by the respondents.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh (supra) has held as under :-

"15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well-recognised principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their

7 WP-11848-2013 authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

16. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi-judicial tribunals. The power to reappreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice."

11. Applying the aforesaid principle of law, it is very much clear that any authority constituted by the statute and is deciding the dispute as per the provisions of the rules made thereunder is a quasi judicial authority and the decisions of the said quasi judicial authority is amenable to the writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent does not stand the judicial scrutiny by this Court and is hereby rejected.

12. As this Court in similar matter viz. W.P.No.16781/2014 (Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Vs.

8 WP-11848-2013 Dr.H.H.Trivedi and others) vide order dated 1.4.2026 has already decided that the writ petition against the remand order is not maintainable, wherein it is held as under :-

"7. It is trite law that against the order of remand, writ petition is not maintainable. (See. Anant Singh and another vs. Govind and others reported in 1999 RN 99).

8. However, considering the fact that by remanding the matter to the assessing authority, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner as both the parties will have equal opportunity to submit their stand/defence before the assessing authority, this Court is of considered opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority is absolutely in consonance with section 126 of the Act by which matter has been remanded, granting liberty to the petitioner to reassess the tariff.

13. Accordingly, these bunch of writ petitions are also disposed of in the light of order dated 1.4.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16781/2014 (Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Vs. Dr.H.H.Trivedi and others) with liberty to the parties to raise all the questions with regard to unauthorized use, period and excess load before the Assessing Officer. In turn, the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the dispute within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.