Liability under the provisions of Section 126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not restricted to the consumer only but extends to any person who is liable for the theft of electricity.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The present application has been filed by the writ petitioner in WPO No.94 of 2021 for review of an order dated April 4, 2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on contest without costs.

2. The first ground of review is lack of authority of the CESC Limited under the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the 2003 Act') to make any provisional/final assessment against a non-consumer. A plain reading of Section 126 of the 2003 Act, however, reveals that the issuance of assessment by the Distribution Licensee is extended to 'any other person benefited by' unauthorised use of electricity.

3. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 provides that the order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. The CESC Limited has pleaded that the consumer had entrusted electrical work on the petitioner and the theft committed by the petitioner was beyond the authority given by the consumer to the petitioner.

4. The review applicant next contends that it has been erroneously recorded in Paragraph No.19 of the order under review that the service cut-out of the CESC Limited was located at the petitioner's premises, whereas the petitioner has no existence in respect of the subject premises and is not a consumer but a stranger.

5. Although such observation does appear in Paragraph No.15 of the order under review, the same does not have a direct bearing on the outcome of the writ petition since, under the purview of Section 126, any person in occupation, possession or in charge of the location may be served with an order of provisional assessment.

6. The petitioner has further contended that Vakalatnama was given by the petitioner only in respect of the proceeding under Section 135 of the 2003 Act and not in respect of the assessment proceedings under Section 126 of the said Act and that the signature of Sujit Singh, Advocate made in the Vakalatnama and the signature in the letter dated October 15, 2020 enclosed with the Supplementary Affidavit are completely different and forged.

7. However, such factual assertion is being made for the first time in the review application. It is well-settled that, following the principle of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the particulars of an alleged act of fraud or forgery have to be given in the pleadings; however, such particulars are missing in the writ petition itself.

8. Moreover, no review application lies on such factual question, since such a consideration amounts to neither a discovery of new matter nor an error apparent on the face of record or anything akin thereto.

9. Insofar as the other ground taken in the review application is concerned, to the effect that proceedings under Section 126 or Section 135 of the 2003 Act can be initiated only against the consumer who tampered the meter or allowed tampering of the meter, such contention is also being made for the first time in the review application. In any event, the said submission has no reasonable basis, since Section 126(4) provides that 'any person' served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee.

10. Sub-section (3) stipulates that the person on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2) shall be entitled to file objections and sub-section (2) stipulates that the order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.

Sub-section (1) of Section 126, on the other hand, includes the expression 'any other person benefited by such use'. Again, Section 135 of the 2003 Act, in no uncertain terms, provides that 'whoever' dishonestly does any of the acts as provided in the said Section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term as provided in the said Section.

11. The entire tenor of Sections 126 and 135 clearly revea