Supreme Court Restores Order Quashing Electricity Theft Assessment, Holds Suspicion Alone Insufficient

Case Snapshot

Case Name: M/s. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 851

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Vipul M

Date of Judgment: August 12, 2026

Area of Law: Electricity Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Law

The Judgment in One Line

Suspicion of theft of electricity without substantive evidence in inspection report cannot sustain provisional assessment; writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy.

Why This Judgment Matters

This landmark judgment clarifies the distinction between "unauthorised use of electricity" under Section 126 and "theft of electricity" under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Supreme Court held that theft requires proof of dishonest intention (mens rea) and substantive evidence—mere suspicion is insufficient. The Court also affirmed that writ petitions are maintainable against provisional assessment orders even when statutory remedies exist, as Section 127 only provides appeal against final orders. This protects consumers from arbitrary assessments based on vague inspection reports and ensures that the State cannot bypass evidentiary requirements by labeling suspicion as theft.

Background

The petitioner, a steel company, was granted an electrical connection under HTSS Tariff with a contract demand of 3000 KVA on July 3, 2006. On September 26, 2017, a cubical metering unit blast caused an electricity breakdown. An inspection was conducted, and the report noted that the metering arrangement w

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.