Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI WPA 17772 OF 2026 SRI PRALAY KUMAR DE …PETITIONER -VERSUS- REGIONAL MANAGER, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR REGION & ORS. …RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Mondal, Adv. Mr. Sukanta Mondal, Adv. For the WBSEDCL : Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arijit Bhowmick, Adv. Heard on : 09.09.2026 Judgment on : 09.09.2026 OM NARAYAN RAI, J.:- 1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus on the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities directing them to refund the payment made by him to the WBSEDCL Authorities in terms of the order passed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 20031 on an appeal against the final order of assessment passed under Section 126 thereof. 2. The petitioner’s father was the registered consumer of electricity from the WBSEDCL. The petitioner was found to be using electricity through the said connection unauthorisedly for operating his husking mill. Accordingly, an order of provisional assessment was passed by the assessing officer on September 21, 2004 finding the consumer (which would include the petitioner) liable in the sum of Rs.2,60,896/-. 1 Hereafter “the 2003 Act” 3. The petitioner filed a written objection against the order of provisional assessment. The assessing officer considered the same and ultimately confirmed the order of provisional assessment by passing a final assessment order dated September 24, 2004. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the appellate authority under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated December 28, 2004 thereby reducing the finally assessed sum from Rs.2,60,896/- to Rs.2,24,181/-. The petitioner paid the aforesaid sum and the electricity supply was restored. 5. The distribution licensee had also lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging theft of electricity on the same grounds on which the charges of unauthorized use of electricity had been levelled against him. The said FIR ultimately resulted in a criminal case being Indian Electricity Act Case No. 383 of 2004 which was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Paschim Medinipur. The said Special Court ultimately passed an order of acquittal of the petitioner on December 19, 2014. 6. Upon the petitioner being so acquitted in 2014, the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing this writ petition on July 20, 2026 seeking refund of the sum paid by his father in terms of the appellate order under Section 127 of the 2003 Act as aforesaid. The petitioner asserts that as he has been acquitted in the criminal case, which was based on the same charges for which the petitioner was held to be liable to pay the said sum under Sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act, therefore once the criminal action has ended in acquittal, the assessment under Section 126 of the 2003 Act should also lose basis. 7. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the charges based on which the petitioner was held liable for assessment under Section 126 of the 2003 Act were the same as those in the criminal case therefore once the petitioner got acquitted in the criminal case, the assessment order must also get nullified. 8. Relying on Sections 154(5) and 154(6) of the 2003 Act, it is submitted that going by the said provisions civil liability determined by the learned Special Court would prevail over the assessment done by the assessing officer. It was contended that since the learned Special Court has not determined any amount as payable by the petitioner, therefore, it should be held that the petitioner was not liable to pay any sum at all and the assessment done by the assessing officer and the appellate authority should be treated as null and nil thereby entitling the petitioner to refund of the amount paid by him. 9. In support of his submission, he relies on a judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tapan Sen Majumdar vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Others2. He also relies on an unreported judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on March 03, 2023 in the case of Sri Angshuman Sarkar vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Others3. 10. Dr. Saha Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner is not the consumer and no payment was made by the petitioner. 11. It is further submitted that the judgment in the case of Tapan Sen Majumdar (supra) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench which has been relied on by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner was set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Others vs. Tapan Sen Majumdar4. 2 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1971 3 WPA 1153 of 2023, decided on March 03, 2023 4 FMA 121 of 2023, decided on December 11, 2024 12. It is next submitted that the other judgment in the case of Sri Angshuman Sarkar (supra) has been stayed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Dr. Saha Ray relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Castron Technologies Limited vs. The Demodar Valley Corporation & Others5 and submits that the Special Court would get jurisdiction to determine civil liability only in the event it is found that the consumer and the person concerned has committed theft of electricity. ANALYSIS & DECISION: 13. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material-on-record. 14. The writ petition faces several insurmountable hurdles to its success. Firstly, even if the writ petitioner’s case is taken at face value and the contention of the writ petitioner is assumed to be correct then also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay of about twelve years. The order of the petitioner’s acquittal from the criminal case forms the sheet anchor of the petitioner’s case. The said order passed on December 19, 2014. The writ petition has been launched on July 20, 2026. The medical documents and the prescriptions attached to the writ petition do not how any such serious medical condition that could have prevented the petitioner from approaching the writ Court earlier than July 20, 2026. 15. The petitioner’s claim for refund is in the nature of a money claim and such a claim by way of a suit would have been time barred by the time, the writ was preferred. Law in such regard is very well settled that though the provisions of limitation Act do not apply proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India yet, the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard 5 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 6114 of 2023, November 21, 2024 by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured6. The writ petition therefore warrants dismissal on the ground of delay alone. 16. Even otherwise, the petitioner’s case would not stand in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Castron Technologies Limited (supra). In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sub-section 5 of Section 154 of the 2003 Act to mean that the learned Special Court would get jurisdiction to determine civil liability only in the event it is found that consumer or person concerned has committed theft of electricity. The following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clinch the issue against the petitioner:- “As regards sub-section 5 of Section 154 of the 2003 Act, the Special Court gets jurisdiction to determine civil liability in the event it is found that the consumer or person concerned has committed theft of energy. In this case, the finding of the Court was that the charge of theft has not been established. Therefore, there were no occasion for the Special Court to make adjudication under sub-section 5 of Section 154 of the 2003 Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. In the present case, as in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Special Court has not found theft to have been committed and as such the question of determining civil liability never arose. It is well settled that while every theft of electricity would be unauthorized use of electricity every unauthorized use of electricity may not be theft. In such view of the matter, if there is no theft then no occasion would arise for the learned Special Court to determine the civil liability. That being so the provisions of Sections 154(5) and 154(6) of the 2003 Act would not be applicable. 18. Insofar as the co-ordinate Bench judgments in the case of Tapan Sen Majumdar (supra) and Sri Angshuman Sarkar (supra) are concerned, the same would not 6 State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 10 aid the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Castron Technologies Limited (supra). 19. For all the reasons aforesaid, WPA 17772 of 2026 stands dismissed. No costs. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) Court No. 07 D/L-26 AJ (AR Crt.)