Theft of electricity falls within the definition of unauthorized use of electricity, and the authorities are empowered to disconnect power supply immediately upon detection of theft of electricity.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th of June, 2021 whereby WPO 210 of 2021 has been dismissed.

2. The appellants had approached writ Court with the plea that the electricity meters in question were installed in their premises and they were regularly paying the bill but suddenly the respondent electricity authorities on 21st of October, 2020 had issued notice of inspection and thereafter the electricity supply was illegally disconnected and the provisional order of assessment was passed on 21st of October, 2020. Thereafter the notice of hearing dated 9th of November, 2020 was issued, hence the appellants had filed the writ petition challenging the communication dated 21st of October, 2020 (Annexure-'P/4'), provisional assessment order (Annexure'P/3') and the Inspection Report (Annexure-'P/8').

3. Learned Single Judge has examined the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and has found that it was a case of theft of electricity and there was tampering of the body seals of the meter and the final order of assessment was passed on 17th of November, 2020 which was duly communicated to the appellants with acknowledgment on 21st of November, 2020 and learned Single Judge has also noted that the earlier two writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed as withdrawn and no leave to file a fresh petition was sought. Hence, the writ petition has been dismissed with cost.

4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity, therefore, no disconnection can be made and at the most monetary demand can be raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that the factum of earlier writ petitions was already disclosed and that regulation 4.2.1 are not in consonance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Act and further that procedure prescribed under Section 56 of the Act was not followed at the time of disconnection.

5. As against this learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Single Judge and has submitted that theft of electricity is covered under wider term of unauthorized use of electricity and it is a clear case of tampering of meter and due compliance of the provisions of the Act has been done and regulation 4.2.1 is not under challenge.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The record reflects that on 21st of October, 2020 due notice of inspection of the premises was given to the appellants by the authorized officer of the respondent and during the inspection unauthorized use of electricity was found on both the meters. The inspection report on record clearly mentions that body seals of the meter were found tampered with and tang load was found to be much higher than the display on the meter. The respondent authority on 21st of October, 2020 had passed the provisional assessment order to the best of judgment and calculated charges of unauthorized use of electricity and by the same order had given 15 days time to the appellants to file the objection along with the document they wanted to rely upon and had fixed the matter for hearing on 5th of November, 2020. A separate written communication/order dated 21st of October, 2020 was sent relating to disconnection of supply of electricity.

The issue which the appellant is raising, drawing the distinction between the theft of electricity and unauthorized use of electricity, has already been considered in the judgment in the matter of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/s. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019(5) CHN (SC) 72 wherein in similar circumstances, where the inspecting team had found theft of energy by tampering the meter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering Sections 126 and 135 of the Act had held that all the instances of unauthorized use of energy m