[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Dilkhusa Tea Company Ltd vs Tripura State Electricity Corporation ... on 31 March, 2026
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.03/2026 in WA No.99 of 2025
WA No.99 of 2025
1. Dilkhusa Tea Company Ltd., a company incorporated under provisions of
Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 3, Wood Street, Kolkata
700016 and inter alia, carrying on business at its different gardens, running the
Murticherrra Tea Estate at P.O. Sadhnashram, North Tripura-799277
2. The Manager, Murticherra Tea Estate, KLS, P.O. Sadhanasram,
Kailashahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura-799277
.........Applicant/Appellant(s);
Versus
1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, to be represented by the
Managing Director, TSECL, Bidyut Bhavan, North Banamalipur, Agartala,
West Tripura
2. The Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited
(TSECL), Bidyut Bhavan, North Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura
3. The General Manager (Technical), Tripura State Electricity Corporation
Limited (TSECL), Bidyut Bhavan, North Banamalipur, Agartala, West
Tripura
4. M/s. Sai Computer Ltd., a Franchise of TSECL, Kailashahar, Unakoti,
Tripura-799277, to be represented by its Authorized Signatory
5. The Project Manager, M/S SAI Computers Ltd, Kailashahar Electrical
Division, Unakoti, Tripura
.........Respondent(s)
For Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawansree Agarwal, Advocate,
Ms. Papiya Goswami, Advocate,
Mr. Soham Acharya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Asutosh De, Advocate,
Mr. Kushal Deb, Advocate,
Mr. Robel Hossain, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
31/03/2026
IA No.03/2026 in WA No.99 of 2025
The instant interlocutory application is allowed, and the proposed
party is impleaded as appellant No.2 in the Writ Appeal.
Page 2 of 6
The amended memo of parties filed along with IA No.03/2026, is
taken on record.
WA No.99 of 2025
Heard learned counsel Mr. Pawansree Agarwal assisted by
learned counsel Ms. Papiya Goswami for the appellants as well as Mr. Kushal
Deb, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, and Mr. Sankar Deb, learned
senior counsel for respondents No.3 & 4.
2. In this Writ Appeal, the judgment dt.31.07.2025 of the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.393/2025 is challenged by the writ petitioner.
3. The matter relates to disconnection of electricity connection to
Murticherra Tea Estate, and the said electricity connections were in the name
of the Manager of the said estate.
4. By oversight, the said Manager was not impleaded in the Writ
Petition, but an Interlocutory Application being IA No.03/2026 was filed in
the instant Writ Appeal to implead the said Manager, which has been ordered
today, unopposed.
5. In the Writ Petition, there was a challenge to a letter
dt.18.06.2025 issued by the fourth respondent, claiming alleged electricity
theft by the second appellant, and straightaway imposing an assessment and
penalty of Rs.9,66,340/- and Rs.9,66,340/- respectively, and directing the
second appellant to pay the same within seven days after receipt of the said
letter. It appears electricity was also disconnected to Estate shortly thereafter
for non-payment of said amount.
Page 3 of 6
6. On 25.06.2025, the second appellant wrote a letter to the agency
operated by the respondents, to indicate the basis of assessment of the said
amounts indicated.
7. Thereafter the respondents furnished to the second appellant a
calculation of the said amount on 26.06.2025.
8. Challenging the letter dt.18.06.2025, WP(C) No.393/2025 was
filed seeking restoration of power connection which had been disconnected,
contending that there is no provisional assessment done as mandated by
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ["the Act", for short], and that
straightaway a final assessment has been made contrary to the provisions of
the Act.
9. The learned Single Judge however dismissed the Writ Petition
stating that there are disputed questions of fact as to whether the appellants
committed the theft or not, what the electricity bills are and how much it
comes to, and they can only be decided by the concerned authority, and in the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these
disputed questions of fact, cannot be gone into.
10. The learned Single Judge gave liberty to the writ petitioner to
approach the appropriate appellate authority ventilating his grievance, and
directed the concerned appellate authority to decide the matter at the earliest.
11. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.
12. Section 126 of the Act states as under:
"126. Assessment. --- (1) If on an inspection of any place or
premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines,
devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records
maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the
Page 4 of 6
conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of
electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment
the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other
person benefited by such use.
(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon
the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or
premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
[(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under
sub- section (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against
the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall,
after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person,
pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of
service of such order of provisional assessment of the electricity
charges payable by such person.]
(4) Any person served with the order of provisional
assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed
amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such
provisional assessment order upon him.
***
[(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that
unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall
be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use
of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during
which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot
be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve
months immediately preceding the date of inspection.]
(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate
equal to [twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category
of services specified in sub-section (5).
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-
(a) "assessing officer" means an officer of a State
Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as
such by the State Government;
(b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of
electricity -
(i) by any artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned
person or authority or licensee; or
(iii) through a tampered meter; or
[(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorised; or
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for
which the supply of electricity was authorized.]"
13. Section 127 of the Act provides for an appeal to an appellate
authority against any order passed under Section 126 of the Act.
14. As can be seen from a reading of Section 126 of the Act, sub-
section (2) of Section 126 requires an order of provisional assessment to be
served upon the appellants, and the appellants under sub-section (3) thereof,
are entitled to file objections thereto against such provisional assessment
before the assessing officer, and the assessing officer, after affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants, has to pass a final order of
assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of
provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by the appellants.
15. Sub-section (4) provides that any person served with the order of
provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed
amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional
assessment order upon him.
16. Sub-section (6) provides that the assessment under this section
shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant
category of services specified in sub-section (5).
17. There is no dispute that this procedure of making a provisional
assessment, serving the copy thereof on the appellants, affording opportunity
of hearing to the appellants, and then passing a final order of assessment, has
not been complied with by the fourth respondent. This vitiates the order of the
fourth respondent dt.18.06.2025.
18. The learned Single Judge unfortunately ignored this aspect of the
matter while asking the first appellant to approach the appellate authority
under Section 127 of the Act.
19. Therefore the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside;
the letter dt.18.06.2025 is also set aside; the respondents are directed to
restore the electricity supply to the appellants forthwith; the respondents are
given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 126 of the Act in
strict compliance with the said provision in all respects, and then pass a final
order of assessment, and communicate it to the appellants.
20. In view of the setting aside of the order dt.18.06.2025 by this
Court, all consequential proceedings are also set aside.
21. Writ Appeal is allowed to the above extent. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PIJUSH KANTI NAG Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Date: 2026.04.01 12:01:10 +05'30'
