JUDGMENT :

S. N. PRASAD, J.

1. In this writ petition, the following prayers have been made:-

(i) quashing the Inventory Report under Annexure-2;

(ii) further a direction may kindly be issued to the opposite party for connection of power supply to the petitioner's premises within a stipulated period; and

(iii) to pass such other order/orders or to issue such other writ/writs, as would afford complete relief to the petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner-Unit has obtained electricity connection by virtue of an agreement entered into with opposite party-WESCO on 12.06.2009 for supply of electrical energy to the premises of the consumer situated at IDC, Kalunga, P.S.-Brahmanitarang over Plot No.284, Khata No.27 in the district of Sundargarh for the purpose of manufacturing of Pencil Ingot.

On 24.12.2010, the authorities of opposite party-WESCO has inspected the premises of the petitioner's Unit and found that the T.C. Inner and other seals fixed on the meter was tampered with and also found that meter was running slow by 28.47%, accordingly, they disconnected the power supply of petitioner's premises on 24.12.2010.

The opposite party-WESCO has prepared Inventory Report to that effect and found therein that the consumer has dishonestly tampered the meter so as to interfere with accurate or proper registration in a manner whereby electricity is stolen, damage the electric meter so as to interfere with proper accurate metering of electricity, have used electricity through a tempered meter and has maliciously injured the meter to prevent from daily registration of actual consumption. These attract Clauses-135(1) and 138(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2003").

Subsequently, the provisional assessment has been made in exercise of power conferred under Section 126(1) of the Act, 2003. In terms of the provision of Section-126(3) of the Act, 2003, the petitioner has given its objection. Thereafter, the final order of assessment was passed in exercise of power conferred under Section-126 of the Act, 2003. However, no appeal was preferred under the provisions of Section-127 of the Act, 2003.

The case of the petitioner is that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner-Unit for the commission of offence under Section-135 of the Act, 2003, in which, he has been acquitted by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. Hence, the provisional or final assessment as has been made under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 will of no meaning, as such, the entire proceeding initiated under the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 may be quashed.

3. Per contra, the case of the opposite party, as per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, is that the criminal proceeding initiated for the commission of offence under Section-135 of the Act, 2003 will have no bearing upon the proceeding initiated under Section-126 of the Act, 2003, since the provision as contained under Section-126 of the Act which stipulates regarding unauthorized use of electricity while Section-135 of the Act, 2003 deals with the criminal part and even if the consumer is being acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be exonerated from the provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned counsel for the opposite party.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of writ petition, has raised the following submissions:-

(i) There being an allegation of theft of electricity against the petitioner and an F.I.R. having been lodged under Section 135 of the Act, 2003, in which, the petitioner has been acquitted. Hence, there is no question of civil liability which is to be assessed under the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003. As such, the entire proceeding pending under Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not sustainable in the eye of law; and

(ii) The provision of Section-126 of the Act, 2003 is not applicable in the cases of theft