JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J :

1. The writ petitioner is a consumer of electricity under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL). The petitioner runs a husking mill. An allegation of theft was made against the petitioner and a proceeding initiated under Section 135(1)(b) and (c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2003 Act”).

2. The WBSEDCL also made a provisional order of assessment under Section 126 of the 2003 Act to the tune of Rs.2,78,369/-. The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from a co-ordinate bench of this Court on August 23, 2006 on condition of deposit of 1/4th of the provisional bill amount dated July 8, 2006.

3. Challenging the said provisional assessment bill dated July 8, 2006, the present writ petition was filed.

4. During pendency of the writ petition, an order of acquittal was passed in favour of the petitioner in connection with the criminal case under Section 135 of the 2003 Act.

5. The petitioner filed CAN 11378 of 2012 (subsequently renumbered as CAN 2 of 2012). In the said application, it was pointed out that the petitioner had applied for reconnection of electricity upon acquittal.

6. However, the WBSEDCL, vide Memo No. NGR/1519 dated September 12, 2012, asked the petitioner to pay the rest of the assessed amount and disconnection and reconnection charges within September 15, 2012 to avail restoration of his industrial connection. It was further intimated by the WBSEDCL in the said Memo that the industrial connection had already been converted to deemed permanent disconnection and his agreement terminated but that a scope had been opened up for reconnection of such type of deemed permanent connections up to September 15, 2012, which opportunity the petitioner was asked to avail.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in view of the primary allegation against the petitioner being meter tampering, which finds place in the definitions of both “unauthorized use of electricity” and “pilferage/theft” respectively within the contemplations of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case on similar ground absolves the petitioner of the liability to pay the provisionally assessed amount. Hence, the said amount ought to be waived, the amount already deposited as condition of anticipatory bail be refunded and the electricity connection of the petitioner to be immediately restored.

8. Learned counsel submits that in the meantime, a final order of assessment was passed under Section 126, which is cryptic and, as such, ought to be set aside on such ground alone.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites an unreported judgment of this Court dated July 15, 2022 in WPA 14580 of 2015 [Tapan Sen Majumdar Vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others], in which case, in view of acquittal of the writ petitioner on the self-same allegation under Section 135 as in the proceeding under Section 126, the licensee was directed to refund the entire amount paid by the petitioner in connection with the proceeding under Section 126.

10. Learned counsel places the provisions of Sections 126, 135 and 154 of the 2003 Act to develop his argument. It is submitted that the restoration of electricity connection is to be given on deposit of the entire amount assessed. Placing reliance on sub-section (5) of Section 154, it is argued that the Special Court taking up the proceeding under Section 135 also has to determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy as per the procedure laid down therein.

11. Sub-section (6) of the said Section provides that in case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or person shall be refunded.

12. It is argued that a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that