Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMIT RAWAL, J.
Darshan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And others - Respondents
CWP No.24925 of 2013
Decided on : 11-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. J.S.Gurna, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a remedy to the affected party and the need to consider all relevant provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 in cases of alleged theft of electricity.
Headnote:
Electricity Theft - Jurisdiction of Special Court - Sections 135, 126(6) of Electricity Act 2003 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 135 and 126(6) of the Electricity Act 2003, highlighting the elements of theft of electricity and the procedure for assessment and trial before the Special Court. The court emphasized the importance of providing a remedy to the affected party and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back for a fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing the appeal against the final assessment order for alleged theft of electricity. The petitioner claimed to be running a flour mill previously operated by his deceased father, and the electricity connection was in his father's name. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of locus standi and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the appeal was premature and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to present evidence. The court disagreed with a previous judgment and emphasized the need to consider all relevant provisions of the Electricity Act 2003.
Issues: Locus standi, evidence submission, jurisdiction of Special Court, interpretation of Sections 135 and 126(6) of Electricity Act 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to present evidence and that the previous judgment did not consider all relevant provisions of the Electricity Act 2003.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Additional District Collector for a fresh decision, with directions for the parties to appear before the Additional District Collector on a specified date.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking vindication of the grievance by challenging the order dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional District Collector, Patiala, who has dismissed the appeal filed against the final assessment order with regard to alleged theft.
2. Mr. Jasbir Rattan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that originally, Sh. Kishan Singh son of late Sh. Chet Ram was availing electricity power facility for running his flour mill from the respondent power COM vide account No.P-54SP-540009-A and the petitioner was assisting Sh. Kishan Singh during his life time and after his death, the petitioner is running the flour mill. In this regard, he has attached documents Annexures P-2 and P-3. Thereafter, the electricity was provided through the aforementioned connection. However, on 25.08.2011, the Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub-Division, Ghamraundha issued memo with a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.3,29,872/- as theft of energy and Rs.1,30,000/- as compound charges on the basis of checking. The aforementioned demand was raised on the premise that electric meter was closed and the consumer was using electricity by direct wire, in essence, it was a theft of electricity. Thereafter, the final assessment order (Annexure P-7) was passed, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Collector (A.D.C.) Patiala, District Patiala on 25.10.2011, but the same has been dismissed on the ground of locus standi, much less no evidence has been brought on record. The Additional District Collector had also observed that the petitioner has not transferred the meter connection in his name from the name of his father, account holder, who has since expired.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel has passed on a copy of the order dated 13.11.2014 rendered in SC No.33 of 01.02.2014, which is taken on record and tagged at the end of the paper book, whereby an FIR No.185 dated 26.08.2011 was registered, which resulted into acquittal. Copy of the order has also been given to Ms. J.S. Gurna, Advocate.
4. Per contra, Ms. J.S.Gurna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the order under challenge is perfectly legal and justified. The petitioner had no locus standi to assail the findings as the separate procedure is prescribed in respect of the theft of electricity, in essence, Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “2003 Act”) deals with the theft of electricity and the remedy lies under Section 154, i.e., before Special Court, thus, appeal was not maintainable and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of her contention, she relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.14746 of 2013 titled as Punjab State Power Corporation and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another, decided on 05.12.2014, wherein, it has been held that jurisdiction exercised by the SDM was wholly without any legal authority.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
7. For the sake of brevity, the provisions of Sections 135 and 126 (6) of the Electricity Act 2003 read thus:-
Section 135. (Theft of Electricity): 1(1) Whoever, dishonestly,
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the prop
