Patna High Court
Shobha Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8704 of 2018
======================================================
Shobha Devi Wife of Sunil Kumar Gupta at Police Camp, Beda, P.O. Beda,
P.S. Sasaram Muffasil, District Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
2. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing Director.
3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Supply, Sasaram, District Rohtas.
4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Sasaram
Rural, District Rohtas.
5. The District Certificate Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Suraj Samdarshi
Avinash Shekhar
Simran Kumari
Abhilasha Jha, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abbas Haider -SC 6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ
application for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent authorities and
in particular the respondent no. 4, to
complete the assessment proceeding as
per provisions of Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, which has not
attained finality till date.
(ii) For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for
Patna High Court CWJC No.8704 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
2/7
quashing of the certificate proceeding
giving rise to Certificate Case No. 33 of
2016-17, which has been instituted on
the requisition which has not been
properly filled up by the respondent no.
4.
(iii) For a declaration that initiation of
certificate proceeding without final
adjudication under Section 126 and 127
of the Electricity Act, 2003 tantamounts
to gross abuse of the power and
discretion conferred upon the Assessing
Authority.
(iv) For a direction to the respondent no.
5 not to take any further step in the
certificate proceeding bearing Certificate
Case No. 33 of 2016-17 instituted on the
basis of the requisition filed by the
respondent no. 4, who is the Assessing
Officer also, without compliance of
Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
(v) For a declaration that unauthorized
use of electricity would be only to the
extent of the parameters reflected by the
meter and not the connected load found
in course of physical inspection, wherein
meter is found to be correct; and for any
other relief or reliefs to which the
petitioner is found entitled."
Patna High Court CWJC No.8704 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
3/7
2. The brief facts as culled out of the
petition are that the petitioner for establishing rice
mill took an electricity connection bearing Service
Connection No. AIR-3059, energized on 06.07.2012
with an initial sanctioned load of 51 H.P., which was
enhanced to 81 H.P. under LTIS-II category. On
11.11.2014
, an inspection was conducted during
which the connected load was found to be 136 H.P.,
though the meter recorded a maximum demand of
116.19 H.P. All seals of the meter were found
normal pursuant to the said inspection a demand
of Rs. 8,56,852/- was raised under Section 126 of
the Electricity Act. The said provisional assessment
dated 24.12.2014.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner filed
representation dated 07.01.2015 based on these
grounds in response to Letter No. 424, but no final
order was passed under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act. Despite this, the electricity supply
was disconnected on 31.03.2015, and a certificate
proceeding was initiated under the Bihar & Orissa
Patna High Court CWJC No.8704 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, (hereinafter
called as the PDR Act) for recovery of Rs.
7,71,843/-.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in the absence of a final
assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity
Act, initiation of recovery under the PDR Act is
illegal. It is further submitted that without a final
order, the petitioner is deprived of the statutory
right to appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity
Act.
5. It is contended that the requisition for
recovery filed by respondent no. 4 is defective and
incomplete, vitiating the proceedings initiated
thereupon and the entire recovery proceeding are
contrary to the statutory scheme, thereby violating
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.
6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
the respondents wherein the respondents admitted
the inspection findings and the issuance of the
provisional assessment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8704 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
7. The Learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner did not file
objections within the stipulated time.
8. It is argued that the certificate
proceeding was validly initiated based on the
provisional assessment and the requisition was
filed properly.
9. The respondents asserted that the
petitioner should have availed the remedy under
Section 10 of the PDR Act before approaching the
Writ court. They denied any violation of
constitutional rights and submitted that the
certificate officer was the competent authority to
adjudicate the objections.
10. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
11. Upon hearing the parties and perusing
the records, it is evident that the final order under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act was not passed
despite the petitioner having filed objections to the
provisional assessment due to this procedural
Patna High Court CWJC No.8704 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
lapse the petitioner could not avail the statutory
right of appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity
Act.
12. Further, the initiation of certificate
proceedings under the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demand Recovery Act, 1914, without finalization of
the assessment process, is found to be premature
and legally unsustainable.
13. The Court also notes from the record
that the petitioner has filed an objection under
Section 9 of the PDR Act, but the Certificate Officer
has not yet passed any order under Section 10.
14. Under the facts and circumstances
stated above, the Court finds it appropriate to
remit the matter to the Certificate Officer to decide
the objections filed by the petitioner in accordance
with law.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions,
the matter is remitted to the concerned Certificate
Officer to decide the objection filed by the
petitioner under Section 10 of the Bihar & Orissa
Patna High Court CWJC No.8704 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.
16. It is needless to mention that before
passing any order, the authority concerned shall
give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Any order passed shall be communicated to the
petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of three months from the date of filing of
the objections by the petitioner.
17. Accordingly the matter is disposed of
with the aforesaid observation.
18. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.10.2025
Transmission Date
