Virender Singh, J.

1. At the very outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Board, states that the assessment made by the Authorized Officer of the Board during the pendency of the main writ petition, as one finds from para 2 of the impugned judgment, was wrongly labelled under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the Act of 2003) whereas, it is a case of theft in which a provisional assessment is made under Third proviso to Section 135. According to Mr. Kumar, once the appellant who has already deposited the assessed amount, may be in two parts initially, before the Writ Court and the balance amount during the pendency of the instant Letters Patent Appeal pursuant to order dated 18th March, 2015, it can challenge the provisional assessment only on limited grounds of jurisdiction, manifest error in calculation and, arbitrariness or mala fide, otherwise, after the civil liability is determined in accordance with law, the appellant can claim refund, if the civil liability determined is less than the amount already deposited by the appellant.

2. According to Mr. Kumar, the instant appeal in the present set of circumstances, thus, has been rendered infructuous.

3. Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that may be the appellant sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant detailed calculation for provisional assessment after the case of theft was registered against him and that during the pendency of the writ petition the final assessment order was also passed, the appellant was throughout under the impression that the assessment made by the Board was in terms of Section 126 of the Act of 2003 and not under Section 135 of the Act of 2003. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that therefore, the view taken by learned Single Judge that the appellant is required to file an application before the Special Judge under Section 154 of the Act of 2003, is an erroneous view on the face of it.

4. The appellant approached the Writ Court with a specific prayer for providing calculation for assessment dated 22.06.2009 for Rs.3,95,591/-, which in view of the appellant was an order of provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Subsequently, by an amendment, the assessment order passed subsequently on 30.07.2009, was also challenged by the appellant. The plea raised by the appellant before the Writ Court was that the allegation of committing theft of electricity by short circuiting CT Secondary Terminals at CT Junction Bax cannot be termed as theft of electricity. The appellant pleaded that under Clause 13.4 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005, the Board is under a duty to maintain correct meters. Another plea taken by the appellant was that in the event seal has been found tampered/broken, the matter is guided under Clause 15.3 of the Regulation of 2005 whereas, Jharkhand State Electricity Board has registered a case of theft.

5. Under the Electricity Act, 2003, “cases of theft of electricity” and “cases of unauthorized used of electricity” have been dealt with differently. The cases of unauthorized use of electricity covered under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is under Part XII, which deals with “investigation and enforcement” whereas, the theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Act has been dealt with under part XIV, which deals with the “offence and penalty”. The provisions under Section 126 and Section 135 are two different and distinct provisions, operating in different fields and both deal with different situations in different manner.

6. The Electricity Act, 2003 has another special feature. The Special Court constituted for speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act has been conferred power to determine civil liability against a consumer in terms of money for theft of energy besides, power and jurisdiction to try the offences mentioned in Section 135. Se