JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Cetiorari for quashing the checking report dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-2), the joint checking report dated 21.08.2013 (Annexure P-7), assessment order dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure P-8) and notice of compounding the offence of theft dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-9)

2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner-G.R. Senior Secondary School, Gujrani, Bhiwani being run under the G.R. Siksha Samiti, is a consumer of the respondent-distribution licensee. The premises of the petitioner were inspected on 18.03.2013 by the respondent-distribution licensee whereupon a case of theft of energy was prima facie reported. One case bearing FIR No. 1230 dated 18.03.2013 was registered against the petitioner. Further, an assessment was done by the respondents and a penalty of Rs. 18,93,859/- was also imposed against Hawa Singh, then working President of the petitioner-society vide order dated 22.08.2013. A compounding notice was served upon the petitioner vide which the petitioner was offer to deposit a sum of Rs. 43 lacs for seeking compound of the said offence. Even though, the written statement in the present case has been filed, however, the issue is not being dealt with in detail as regards the applicability of the sale circular etc. and/or assessment as claimed by the respondents since it has undisputedly been brought before this Court that the proceedings in case bearing FIR No. 1230 dated 18.03.2013 registered at Police Station Irrigation & Power Rewari culminated in acquittal of Hawa Singh, the then President of the petitioner- Society vide judgment dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.

3. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 had been filed wherein they took a stand that it was a case of theft of energy. The meter was accordingly removed for checking it accuracy and the same was to be tested on 22.03.2013. The petitioner refused to sign the testing report which was eventually undertaken on 21.08.2013. He did not appear despite notice dated 05.08.2013. Meter body lock/seal was found broken and meter was found recording energy only in 04 phase and 70% below normal. Accordingly an order of assessment alongwith notice of compounding was served upon the petitioner. Other allegations on merit were denied by the respondents. Reference was made to circular issued for dealing with cases pertaining to theft of energy as well as unauthorized use of electricity and procedure for assessment in such a case. The case of the petitioner was thus not a case of suspected theft and that he is liable to compensate for the loss caused to the disconnection.

4. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the aforesaid judgment of acquittal has already attained finality.

5. The core question which thus arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondent-distribution licensee can claim any civil liability once criminal proceedings had been initiated and resulted in an acquittal of the person who has been tried for commission of the alleged offence.

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that respondents have no authority to demand any amount once a person has already been charged for commission of theft of energy; has faced trial and has been acquitted. He contends that determination of civil liability in a case of theft of energy can only be undertaken by the Special