Assessment Under Section 135 of Electricity Act Without Hearing Unsustainable; Special Court Competent to Determine Civil Liability: P&H High Court
Case Name: Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. (with connected matters)
Date of Judgment: 13.03.2026
Citation: CWP-35731-2025 (O&M) & connected cases
Bench: Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act without issuance of show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing are legally unsustainable. It was further held that although no statutory appellate remedy exists against such assessment, the Special Court under Section 154 is competent to determine civil liability, even at a pre-cognizance stage. Civil Court jurisdiction remains barred.
Summary: The batch of writ petitions arose from assessment orders issued by electricity authorities alleging theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioners challenged the legality of assessment orders, compounding notices, and consequential demands, primarily on the ground that no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice had been provided prior to passing the impugned orders.
The factual matrix revealed that the authorities had conducted inspections and directly proceeded to assess liability under Section 135, treating the cases as theft of electricity, without adhering to procedural safeguards. In some cases, petitioners had pursued civil remedies, which were later rendered non-maintainable in view of the statutory bar under Section 145 of the Act.
The Court undertook an extensive analysis of the statutory framework, particularly distinguishing between Section 126 (unauthorized use of electricity) and Section 135 (theft of electricity). It emphasized that Section 135 involves criminal liability premised on “dishonest intention,” whereas Section 126 pertains to civil liability without the element of mens rea.
A significant legal issue addressed was the absence of a clear appellate mechanism against assessments made under Section 135. The Court examined the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2005 and the Haryana Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2014, which provide for assessment even in theft cases. However, it was noted that such assessment cannot bypass fundamental principles of natural justice.
The Court categorically held that even in cases of alleged theft, assessment affecting civil consequences cannot be made without affording opportunity of hearing. The admitted position that no notice or hearing was given rendered the impugned orders legally flawed.
On the issue of remedy, the Court clarified that: The Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 145 of the Act; No appeal lies under Section 127 against assessment under Section 135.; The Special Court constituted under Section 153 read with Section 154 is the appropriate forum to determine civil liability arising from theft of electricity.
Importantly, the Court held that the Special Court’s jurisdiction is not dependent upon prior cognizance of offence and it can adjudicate civil liability even at an interim stage. This interpretation prevents a remediless situation for consumers and aligns with the statutory scheme.
The Court further elaborated that assessment under Section 135 and criminal prosecution are distinct facets, and determination of civil liability ultimately rests with the Special Court.
Decision: The impugned assessment orders were set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners were relegated to avail remedy before the Special Court for determination of liability in accordance with law.