Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is a distribution franchise of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and is authorised to operate and maintain the distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in the urban areas of Agra. Respondent No. 3 is a consumer of electricity having obtained a sanctioned load of 7.5 KVA for domestic purposes. It transpires that an inspection was carried out on 19th September, 2011 at the premises of respondent No. 3 and it was found that respondent No. 3 was using the domestic connection for commercial purposes, namely, for office purposes. Since the consumption of energy was being used unauthorisedly for a purpose other than for what it was given, a report was submitted by the inspection team for unauthorised use of electricity. Based on this inspection report, a provisional assessment was made by the petitioner under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003) demanding a sum of Rs. 42,266.30. The respondents, instead of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Act of 2003, filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for the quashing of the assessment bill as well as the inspection report. The petitioner appeared and contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim as it related to the unauthorized use of electricity, which was an offence and, consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or decide the dispute on merits. The petitioner further contended that an assessment was made under Section 126 of the Act of 2003, against which an appeal lies under Section 127 of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, the respondent had a remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The Permanent Lok Adalat without deciding the issue of jurisdiction and without conciliating in the matter proceeded to decide the matter on merit and issued an award dated 21st June, 2012 allowing the claim by setting aside the inspection report and the assessment bill.

3. Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.L. Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint relating to theft of energy was not maintainable as it was an offence and, consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to entertain or decide the dispute on merits. The learned counsel further submitted that the primary object of the Permanent Lok Adalat was to conciliate and settle the matter at the pre-litigation stage and only upon failure of the conciliation, that it was open to the Permanent Lok Adalat to proceed and decide the matter on merits. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, no effort whatsoever was made for conciliation and the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded from the very inception as if it only had an adjudicatory role to play.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that it was a case of wrong billing, which could be raised and decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

6. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be essential to refer to some of the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and The Electricity Act, 2003. Chapter VIA of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was inserted by Act No. 37 of 2002. The title of this chapter states pre-litigation, conciliation and settlement. Section 22-A(a) defines Permanent Lok Adalat to mean a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-Section (1) of Section 22B. Public utility service has been defined under Section 22-A(b), to mean:

“(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or

(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or

(vi