Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010075212026 2026:GAU-AS:10397-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/255/2026 THE GENERAL MANAGER, ROSEKANDY TEA ESTATE P.O.- BARJALINGA, KACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788117 VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006. 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAAHATI-781008 3:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. CACHAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788115 4:ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER TESTING AND COMMISSIONING DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD CACHAR MEHERPUR SILCHAR PIN- 788115 5:ASSESSING OFFICER CUM ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA CACHAR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPNAY LIMITED BADARPURGHAT KARIMGANJ PIN- 788806 6:THE SENIOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR BIRBAL BAZAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 78015 7:ACCOUNT OFFICER INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION DIVISION CACHAR DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. SILCHAR CACHAR-78811 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Saikia, Advocate. : Mr. S. Mili, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for Page No.# 2/6 respondent Nos.1 and 2. : Mr. B. Choudhury, Standing Counsel, APDCL for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.07.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mrs. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 7. The appellant, a long-time consumer of respondent/APDCL, is a Tea Estate under the Cachar Electrical Circle. In the year 1978, the appellant had obtained a High-Tension connection with a Maximum Demand Indicator (MDI) meter. Sometimes in the year 2018, a load survey inspection was conducted by a team of APDCL officials in which there was a conspicuous absence of the Assessing Officer. The Inspecting Team found the total connected load of approximately 804 KW inside the factory premises. However, it was also noted by the Inspecting Team that there were 6(six) irrigation points, which could draw power from the existing connection or from the self-owned generators of the Company. However, based on the afore-noted inspection report, the respondent/APDCL treated the entire total detected load to be in excess of approximately 422 KW than the sanctioned load. Consequently, a Page No.# 3/6 provisional assessment bill was prepared under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2003”) for unauthorized use of electricity. After objections and hearings, a final assessment of approximately Rs.57,75,045/- was made. This assessment was challenged by the appellant before this Court by way of filing a writ petition, obtaining interim relief to the extent of the requirement of deposit of 25% of the assessed amount as an interim measure. The matter travelled to the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act of 2003. The Appellate Authority affirmed that there was an unauthorized use of the connection but directed for a fresh assessment only on the excess load of 422.64 KW for a fixed period of 12(twelve) months at double the fixed charge tariff with adjustment of an earlier over drawal penalties. Thereafter, the appellant filed 2(two) writ petitions, vide WP(C) No.81/2024 and WP(C) No.646/2024, questioning the Appellate Authority’s order and consequential bill, respectively. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge in both the matters hovered on the question whether any excess of the connected load would automatically constitute an unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 when the consumer, i.e. the appellant, is a High-Tension consumer with an MDI meter, which scientifically records the actual maximum demand and that also in the background fact of no report regarding tempering of the meter. The appellant also questioned the validity of the inspection as Page No.# 4/6 the Assessing Officer was not part of that Inspection Team. Even the report furnished by the Inspecting Team was not made in the prescribed Form 14. There was no examination of MDI data or load-curve. The major contention raised on behalf of the appellant was whether the irrigation load via 6(six) connections could actually drew power from the APDCL system merely on the assessment of the Inspecting Team that the APDCL connection system could have been used. The report of the Inspection Team reflected that such irrigation connections could draw the supply from the self-possessed generators inside the factory premises. The last of the grounds which actually weighed with the learned Single Judge in giving partial relief to the appellant was that the period of assessment under Section 126(5) read with Regulation 7.4.2(i) of the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) and CEA Installation and Operation of Meters Regulations would not be for 12(twelve) months, in view of a prior inspection on 22.08.2017 where no excess load was found and the MDI data clearly reflected the same. It was thus argued by the appellant that the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority were perverse, especially, in treating the irrigation load as connected to APDCL, despite an ambiguous language used in the report of the Inspecting Team and non- corroboration of the same accusation by the MDI data. The learned Single Judge, therefore, made a partial change in the assessment order, the consequent bill as also the Appellate Authority’s judgment. While accepting the factual finding that there was an excess load against the sanctioned load approved by the APDCL and such excess load constituted an unauthorized use, but refused to interfere with Page No.# 5/6 the assessment so far as it included the irrigation points also. The reason assigned by the learned Single Judge was that it was a pure question of fact whether such irrigation points drew power from the APDCL system or were being supplied power through the generators. Thus, even with that factual finding, and justifiably so, no interference was made. What was allowed by the learned Single Judge was that the decision to go for an assessment for 12(twelve) months was differed with purely on the ground of a prior inspection having been made on 22.08.2017 when no excess load was found by the Inspecting Team. For this fact, the learned Single Judge has held that the default 12(twelve) months period under Section 126(5) of the Act of 2003 could not automatically apply for the purposes of assessment. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed for conducting a further enquiry including the enquiry with respect to the date of purchase of the equipments, etc., and to determine the actual period of unauthorized connection after 22.08.2017 and within 24.05.2018. It was further directed that a fresh assessment bill limited to that ascertained period on the excess of 422.64 KW load be prepared and any excess deposit already made by the appellant be refunded or adjusted against the extra load. Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the re- assessment bill of 30.12.2023 also. Challenging the afore-noted judgment, Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate for the appellant has canvassed the same grounds, namely, the validity of inspection without the presence of the Assessing Officer; the rationale of adding the 6(six) irrigation points on the presumption of same having been connected to the APDCL system; ignoring the Page No.# 6/6 scientific MDI data which reflected the consumption from which it could have been ascertained whether there was an excess of load used by the appellant and non-application of mind in the entire process. We have already dealt with the reasons why no interference was made on factual aspects of the matter but then with the learned Single Judge having ordered for an inspection and re-assessment afresh in respect of the date of purchase of the systems and equipments, the appellant, in our estimation, ought not to grieve. The period for which the assessment shall be made has also been limited between 22.08.2017 and 24.05.2018. This assessment by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority for a period of 12(twelve) months having been curtailed to the period post-August, 2017 and pre-24.05.2018, the grievance of the appellant has totally been redressed. For the reasons stated above, we find no good cause to entertain this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed but without any order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant