SC on Restoration of Electricity & Final Liability of Electricity Theft

This judgment is a significant pronouncement on the interplay between Sections 126, 127, 135 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly concerning the procedure applicable when theft of electricity is detected and the consumer seeks restoration of supply

For electricity-distribution litigation, this decision is likely to become a leading authority on the distinction between assessment for restoration and final determination of civil liability for theft of electricity

Writ Petitions for restoration of electricity on deposit of part of the demand for theft of electricity will face greater resistance

Judgment dated 26.10.2026 of the Supreme Court in SLP (

Civil) No.17868 of 2024 of Dakshin Gujarat VIJ Company Limited and another  Vs.  Vaibhav Metal Crusher

Leading authority on the distinction between for restoration of electricity after disconnection and final determination of civil liability for theft of electricity.

he first respondent, namely, M/s Vaibhav Metal Crusher, was accused of an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003·. After being made accused, on 03.01.2024, a notice, titled as a supplementary bill, was issued to it by the distribution licensee (i.e., the appellant herein), raising a demand of Rs. 92,99,077.55 towards theft of electricity, and Rs. 23,45,845 towards compounding charges. The notice stated that if the said amount along with compounding charges is not paid, prosecution under Section 135 of the 2003 Act would be launched.

se of assessment for unauthorized usage of electricity, the consumer has a right to file an objection, and thereafter an appeal; whereas in the case of theft, the consumer has to suffer disconnection, though on deposit/ payment of the entire assessed amount the supply would have to be restored, and such assessment is subject to the determination of civil liability by the Special Court under sub-section (5) of Section 154. In consequence, the argument is, in a case of theft of electricity, the High Court should not in a routine manner direct for restoration of electricity supply on mere deposit of 50 percent of the demanded amount, and, further, it should not allow filing of objection, or appeal, against such demand.

7. In view of the discussion above, we summarize our conclusions as under: (i) In cases of electricity theft, for seeking restoration of the supply of electricity disconnected under sub section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act, the ‘assessed amount’ required to be deposited or paid under the third proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 135 by the person concerned, in the absence of any specific procedure prescribed under the Supply Code notified under Section 181(2)(x) read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act, is to be determined by adopting the same procedure as is for assessing the electricity charges payable by a person benefiting by the unauthorized use of electricity. (ii) The amount so assessed is subject to the determination in an appeal, if any, filed under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. However, in cases of theft, the determination by the appellate authority is final for the limited purpose of seeking restoration of the supply of electricity in terms of the third proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act. Importantly, where a criminal complaint is filed, such determination is not binding on the Special Court which is empowered to determine the civil liability of the person concerned under sub-section (5) of Section 154 of the 2003 Act. (iii) If the amount assessed and deposited under the third proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 135 exceeds the civil liability determined by the Special Court under sub-section (5) of Section 154, the excess amount is to be refunded in terms envisaged under sub-section (6) of Section 154