The main legal point established is that the CESC Limited acted within its jurisdiction in conducting parallel proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the petitioner's admission and concession to the provisionally assessed amount precluded challenging the final assessment.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged the provisional and final orders of assessment, culminating in a bill dated October 15, 2020, issued under Section 126 of the Electricity act, 2003 (herein after referred to as 'the 2003 act') and quashing of an FIR registered at the behest of the Distribution Licensee under Section 135 of the 2003 act, as well as recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) paid by the petitioner in that regard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in view of the Distribution Licensee patently lacking jurisdiction to issue the provisional and final assessment bills, the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, despite the final assessment being appellable.

3. It is argued that, since a specific allegation of theft has been brought against the petitioner and a proceeding initiated under Section 135 of the 2003 act, the purported provisional and final assessments under Section 126 of the said act were beyond jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of WBSEDCL Vs. Orion Metal Private Limited, reported at (2020) 18 SCC 588, for advancing the proposition that the operation of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 act are distinct in their scope of operation. It was held by the Supreme Court in the said judgment, inter alia, that the assessed amount, relating to assessment contemplated under Section 126(1) of the act, is distinct from the scope of Section 135 of the act. While observing about the distinction between the two provisions, the Supreme Court held that Section 126 forms part of the Scheme which authorizes an electricity supplier to ascertain loss in terms of the revenue caused to it by the consumer by his act of 'unauthorised use of electricity', whereas Section 135 deals with the offence of theft if he has been found to have indulged himself in the acts mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 135 of the 2003 act. It was observed further that it is also clear from Section 154 of the act, which prescribes procedure and power of the Special Court, that the Special Court is empowered to convict the consumer and impose a sentence of imprisonment and also to determine civil liability under Section 154(5) of the act.

5. Learned counsel submits, however, that the observation of the Supreme Court in Paragraph No.15 of Orion Metal (supra) was contrary to a Three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Sourthco) and another Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, reported at (2012) 2 SCC 108.

6. In Paragraph No.15 of Orion Metal (supra), a Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) and observed, inter alia, that the said Bench did not find any valid reason for making a distinction as made by the High Court applying Section 126 of the act. From the Scheme of the act, it appears that after inspection team notices unauthorised use of energy by tampering the meter, the authorities can disconnect the power supply immediately and make immediate assessment for loss of energy, by invoking power under Section 126(1) of the act. The term 'unauthorised use of energy' was held to be of wide connotation. The Supreme Court further found that there may be cases of unauthorised use of energy, not amounting to theft, which are cases namely exceeding the sanctioned load or using the electricity in the premises where its use is not authorised, etc. But, at the same time, it was observed, when there is an allegation of unauthorised use of energy by tampering the meter, such cases of unauthorised use of energy include 'theft' as defined under Section 135 of the act.

7. By placing reliance on the Three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra), learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court, in the said judgment, categorically observed that Section 135 of the