Point of Law : Permanent Lok Adalat has, , clearly fallen into an error in adjudicating dispute instituted by the applicant on it's merits, when it could not effect the conciliation/settlement between the parties.

ORDER :

1. As common issues are involved in both these writ petitions, with the consent of the parties, both petitions were heard together and are decided by way of this common order. SBCWP No. 352/2008 titled as JVVNL Vs. Rajendra Prasad & Anr is taken as lead file to peruse the facts.

2. Petitioners have challenged the awards dated 09.10.2007 and 14.11.2007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (in short “PLA”), Dholpur, in C.M. No. 107/2007 titled as ‘Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited’; and award dated 01.02.2008 passed by PLA in Case No. 138/2007 titled as ‘ Sher Khan vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited’, on the ground that the PLA had no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 22C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (in short “Act of 1987”) in a case where consumer of electricity has been asked to pay for theft of electricity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inspection was carried out at the premises of the petitioner on 27.09.2007 in the presence of the respondent and it was observed that the electricity meter was tampered with, and that the body seal and terminal seal was found broken. Such tampering amounted to theft of electricity, as per provisions of Section 135138 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (in short “Act of 2003”), and therefore the inspection team immediately disconnected the connection and seized the tampered meter in presence of the respondent and VCR (bearing No. 4793/27) dated 27.09.2007 was also filed. The inspection team attempted to supply the copy of the VCR to the respondent but the same was refused by the respondent. The respondent even refused to sign the VCR. On 27.09.2007, a provisional assessment was also carried out by the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 and civil liability of Rs. 42,688 was ascertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that until and unless the said amount is recovered, no re-connection can be ordered, as per Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Connected Matters) Regulation,2004 (in short “Regulations of 2004”). A FIR was also registered for the offence under Sections 135 & 138 of the Act of 2003 on 10.10.2007. Against the VCR dated 27.09.2007, the respondent approached the PLA, which vide impugned interim order dated 09.12.2007 directed that connection be restored provisionally within 3 days upon deposit of Rs. 15,000. The said interim order was confirmed by the PLA vide impugned order dated 14.11.2007 without taking into consideration the fact that the PLA did not have jurisdiction to pass such orders.

4. In support of his contention that PLA lacked jurisdiction to pass orders in cases of theft of electricity, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Special Courts, as constituted under Part XV of the Act of 2003, have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such cases. Further, as per Section 22C (8) of the Act of 1987, the PLA is not empowered to pass any order on merit if the conciliation has failed and the dispute relates to an ‘offence’. It is contended that as the matter pertained to the offence of theft of electricity, as defined under Section 135 of Act of 2003, the PLA had no jurisdiction to pass any order.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner have placed strong reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha: AIR 2008 SC 2398, judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Badrinath Pema Rathore. (Writ Petition No. 3425/2019; decided on 14.01.2022), judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services and Ors. (CWP No. 23193 of 2013; decided on 09.02.2016), judgment of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Torrent Power Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: 2014 (1) ADJ 563, and judgment of Delhi High Court in TATA Power