[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs Kcc Buildcon Limited on 18 April, 2026
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-11532-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
KCC Buildcon Limited
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate for
Ms. Anu Pal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 22.08.2025 whereby Appellate Authority has allowed respondent's
appeal under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003 (for short '2003 Act').
2. The officials of petitioner on 18.03.2025 conducted
inspection at the respondent's premises. The officials formed an opinion
that there is unauthorized use of electricity connection. The consumer is
utilizing electricity for toll plaza by tapping the output of consumer end
meter. The petitioner framed provisional assessment which was followed
by final assessment order dated 05.05.2025. The respondent-consumer
preferred an appeal under Section 127 of 2003 Act which has been
allowed by impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by appellate
authority.
CWP-11532-2026 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
was not authorized to use electricity for its toll plaza. Act of respondent
amounts to unauthorized use of electricity.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that officials of
petitioner inspected respondent's premises on 18.03.2025. They formed
an opinion that there is unauthorized use of electricity connection. The
electricity was utilized for toll plaza by tapping the consumer end meter.
The petitioner in terms of Section 126 provisionally and thereafter finally
assessed liability. The respondent preferred appeal which came to be
allowed by Appellate Authority. The findings recorded by Appellate
Authority read as:
"4. Scope and Applicability of Section 126
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, deals with
unauthorized use of electricity. Unauthorized use is
defined in Explanation (b) to the section and typically
includes usage by unauthorized means, for a different
purpose than sanctioned, for premises or areas not
approved, or extension to unauthorized premises.
In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the
electricity was used for any purpose other than what was
sanctioned i.e., to operate the Toll Plaza under the
Concessionaire Agreement with NHAI. The supply was
extended to a connected facility under the same ownership
and operational control. There is no allegation or proof of
tampering, bypassing, or supplying to external consumers,
which are critical factors justifying penal action under
Section 126.
Thus, interpreting such intra-project supply as
"unauthorized" merely because of meter location is overly
rigid and inconsistent with the legislative intent behind
Section 126, which is to penalize dishonest abstraction or
CWP-11532-2026 (O&M) -3-
fraudulent usage and not to penalize logistical or technical
extensions within the same sanctioned facility.
5. Observations on Respondent's Action
The Respondent has misconstrued the provision of Section-
126 of the Electricity Act. However, the applicability of
Section 126 of the EA-2003 hinges on a clear case of
misuse of electricity. In the instant case, the Toll Plaza is
not an unauthorized or external premise; it is pa part and
parcel of the very infrastructure project for which the
connection was obtained.
Moreover, the Appellant has acted in good faith by
formally requesting meter relocation and depositing the
estimate amount as sanctioned by the Respondent itself.
These actions negate any presumption of wellful default or
misuse and point instead to a case of technical
regularization rather than penal violation.
6. Legal and Equitable Considerations
It is a settled principle that penal provisions such as those
under Section 126 must be construed strictly, and no
penalty can be sustained where the alleged infraction is
more procedural than substantive. The Appellant has not
derived any undue benefit, nor caused any loss to the
utility, nor engaged in unauthorized commercial sale or
diversion.
Additionally, both NHAI's endorsement and the sanctioned
deposit estimate by UHBVNL to shift the meter to the Toll
Plaza premises show institutional acceptance of the
Appellant's legitimate position. Therefore, the assessment
order is not only disproportionate but contrary to equity
and good administrative practice.
7. Conclusion
After detailed consideration of the facts, documents, and
applicable legal provisions, this Appellate Authority is of
the considered opinion that:
The extension of electricity from the office to
the Toll Plaza by the Appellant does not
CWP-11532-2026 (O&M) -4-
constitute unauthorized use within the
meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act,
2003.
The categorization of such internal use as
"sale of electricity" is factually and legally
unfounded.
The actions of the Appellant reflect good
faith and cooperation with UHBVNL to
resolve the metering issue.
8. Order
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as under:
1. The Final Assessment Order issued under Section
126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against M/s. KCC
Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., including the demand of Rs.
41,55,962/- is quashed and set aside.
2. The Respondent is advised to complete the
relocation of the metering point to the Toll Plaza
premises in coordination with Appellant within a
reasonable period, if not already completed.
3. The Respondent shall treat the supply to the Toll
Plaza as authorized, and no further penal action
shall be initiated on the same grounds, subject to
continued compliance.
4. The 50% of assessed amount deposited by the
appellant may be got adjusted/refund in the
electricity bill at the earliest.
5. No order as to costs."
6. From the perusal of findings recorded by Appellate
Authority, it is evident that consumer/respondent paid due electricity
charges. There was no misuse of electricity connection. It is not a case of
non-payment/short payment of electricity charges. The petitioner has
failed to show any evidence to the fact that any loss was caused to
petitioner which could be assessed and recovered under Section 126. The
findings recorded by Appellate Authority are just and reasonable. There
CWP-11532-2026 (O&M) -5-
seems no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
7. In the wake of aforesaid discussion and findings, the petition
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
18.04.2026
Prince Chawla
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
