Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi, JJ.
Sheetla Charan Dubey (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, District Lucknow & 2 Others - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. - 11363 of 2015
Decided On : 10-12-2015
Electricity Act - Theft of Electricity - The court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for filing an appeal against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was found to have indulged in theft of electricity, and a case was booked against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner requested compounding of the criminal proceedings on payment of Rs. 1,90,000, and the impugned recovery was resorted to for the civil liability assessed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for filing an appeal against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained, considering the availability of an alternative remedy under the Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances and the case is clearly of the nature of theft of electricity, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M. Shukla for the respondent No.2 and the learned Chief Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
2. The petitioner was found to have indulged into a theft of electricity as a consequence whereof a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was booked against him. On the request of the petitioner, a criminal proceedings were compounded on a payment of Rs. 1,90,000/-, which the petitioner is said to have deposited. The civil liability of the petitioner also appears to have been assessed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act in furtherance whereof the impugned recovery is resorted to.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisional assessment order was not served upon him despite several representations. The impugned recovery is being carried out without service of such a provisional assessment.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents Sri K.M. Shukla has submitted that it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for being furnished with the original assessment order which shall be handed over to him within 2 days. The petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for filing an appeal against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Act. Since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances and the case be clearly of the nature of theft of electricity, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
