Provisional assessment of electricity consumption for theft is permissible to quantify financial loss for supply restoration. The designated court has statutory authority to adjudicate civil liabilities stemming from theft, which constitutes a legal framework distinct from, and independent of, civil protocols for unauthorized use.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.04.2025, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The writ petitioner is an owner of the stone crusher as well as a licensee of the respondent. On 27.02.2025 a vigilance team of the respondent company visited the place of stone crusher site and found two extra cables connected directly from the low tension bushing of the 20 KVA transformer hence, found the case of 'Theft' under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

02. The writ petitioner was served with the panchnama with provisional assessment notice/order on 27.02.2023 for demanding Rs.55,67,259/- and disconnection of the supply under sub-section 1(A) of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The writ petitioner submitted an objection challenging the panchnama as well as the provisional assessment order. However, the writ petitioner as per direction dated 20.03.2023 has deposited 50% of the provisional assessment amount i.e. Rs.20,33,637/- and sought restoration of supply. The writ petitioner has also submitted an undertaking with the respondents for the deposit of the remaining amount.

03. According to the writ petitioner, this matter was sent to the Zonal Level Committee, but till date the same has not been decided and no criminal complaint has been filed till date. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of a writ petition seeking quashment of the provisional assessment order dated 27.02.2023 as well as the panchnama and return of 50% amount of Rs.20,33,637/- with a direction to decide the pending representation.

04. The respondents have appeared and filed the reply by submitting that the alleged act of the writ petitioner constituted theft of deposit under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The assessment of Rs.55,67,259/- was raised for the energy abstracted through the theft as per Chapter 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2021, and the complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act has been filed before a Special Court.

05. It is further submitted that the petitioner had approached by way of complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum which had been dismissed on 11.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the civil suit which had also been returned on 22.03.2025 by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajgarh. The complaint has been filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and read with Sections 140 and 152 for punishment as well as recovery of the remaining amount of Rs.35,33,622/- is pending before the Special Court. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

06. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition by observing that the provisions under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 operate in two different spheres thus, no interference is liable to be called for. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.

Submissions of the appellant:

07. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have wrongly issued the provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because it is a case of theft as per the report of the panchnama. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and another v/s Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 108 has held that consumption of electricity in excess of sanction load or involving chain of use or category of customer or involving pilferage not amounting to theft and covered under the expression "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 explanation-B of the Electricity Act, 2003. The provisions of Section 126 r/w Section 127 of the Electricity Act,