The court held that the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 override the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act in cases related to theft of electricity and disconnection of supply.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The CESC Limited has preferred the instant writ petition challenging an ex parte Order No.2 dated June 22, 2022 whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas, entertained a petition under Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act and, inter alia, directed the CESC Limited to restore at least one electricity connection of the two in the name of the complainants (present respondent nos.3 and 4) immediately after receiving the order till further order and fixed the date of hearing in the matter on August 30, 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the CESC Limited contends that in the said complaint before the District Forum, the private respondents admitted that the CESC personnel had disconnected the two electricity connection, respectively in the name of the two private respondents, who are spouses of each other.

3. It is submitted that a First Information Report was registered on the complaint of the CESC Limited with the Inspector-in-Charge, Khardah Police Station, in respect of theft of electricity committed by the private respondents. Steps were taken by the CESC Limited under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the 2003 Act') against the private respondents.

4. A provisional assessment was also made under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. It is submitted that the provisional order of assessment has to be disputed by the consumer by appearing before the authorities prior to final assessment being made.

5. Against a final order of assessment, it is pointed out, an appeal is provided in Section 127 of the 2003 Act.

6. Learned counsel for the CESC Limited places reliance on the order of provisional assessment (Annexure P-2 at page 34 of the writ petition), where a specific allegation was made in respect of meter no.2559423, standing in the name of respondent no.4 Putul Giri, on the allegation of tampering of meter.

7. In the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered, it has specifically been alleged that both Sujit Kumer Giri and Putul Giri, the respondent nos.3 and 4, were guilty of such act of theft.

8. It is submitted that since specific provision has been provided in Sections 126 and 135 to challenge the provisional order of assessment and dispute the allegation of theft in the criminal court, no application lay before the consumer forum.

9. Hence, the impugned order was passed patently without jurisdiction.

10. It is further submitted that the present dispute does not relate to any service provided by the CESC Limited. The electricity service was disconnected specifically under the provisions of sections 135 and 138 of the 2003 Act and provisional assessment was raised under Section 126 of the same. As such, there did not arise any occasion of deficiency of service, in the present case, which would have attracted the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.

11. Learned counsel places reliance on Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Anis Ahmed, reported at (2013) 8 SCC 491, for the proposition that a 'complaint' against the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a consumer forum.

12. Next citing T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another, reported at (1977) 4 SCC 467, it is argued that a vexatious and meritless claim ought to be nipped in the bud.

13. Learned counsel for the CESC Limited also places reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated June 29, 2022 passed in WPA 10474 of 2022, relying, inter alia, upon Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation (supra) wherein it was held that such exercise by the consumer forum is patently de hors the jurisdiction of the forum.

14. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Ltd. and another Vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported at (2019) 2 CHN 143, wherein a Division Bench of this C