The Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T:

1. The appellant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA), aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in O.S.SR.No.768 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court under the Indian Electricity Act 2003 -cum- I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

2. Brief facts of the case are that - the respondent is a consumer of electricity under Service connection No.1451460207000553 falling under „Category-LT3(A)(I) Industrial Normal of Kongodu Village. On 17.03.2017, an inspection was conducted by A.E./D.P.E.-1/RJY in respect of the aforesaid service connection of the respondent. During the inspection, the inspecting officer noticed that connected load of 29840 watts by direct tapping and duly bypassing the energy meter and preventing the energy consumed from being recorded in the meter. Thus, the inspecting officer prima facie concluded that the respondent had dishonestly indulged in theft of energy by meddling with the meter and preventing the recording of the consumption of electricity utilized by him. The inspecting officer prepared inspection notes by recording his findings and the particulars of the total connected load during the course of inspection and served a copy of the said inspection notes on the representative of the respondent.

3. Thereupon, the inspecting officer prepared an inspection report dated 17.03.2017 and made an assessment of the loss sustained by APEPDC Limited, including supervision charges and reconnection charges, in a sum of Rs.10,93,914/-. The same was communicated to the applicant for taking further action for recovery of the value of the energy pilfered. By virtue of the powers vested in him under the General Terms and Conditions of supply, he demanded payment of Rs.10,93,739/- towards the value of the energy pilfered under a provisional assessment notice dated 19.03.2016, providing an option to the respondent to pay 50% of the assessed amount plus reconnection charges and supervision charges if the respondent was desirous of restoration of supply, and to pay balance 50% amount in installments pending final determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act read with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Further, a criminal case was registered by the APTS Police against the respondent on the complaint lodged by the inspecting officer for the offence of theft of energy by the respondent punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. It is further stated that the respondent, even without making payment of 50% of the provisional assessment amount, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.29435 of 2016 questioning the validity of the provisional assessment notice dated 19.03.2016 and seeking a direction not to disconnect the service connection pending disposal of the writ petition. This Court, by an order dated 31.08.2016, while disposing of the writ petition, directed restoration of power supply subject to the condition of payment of 50% of the amount towards the value of the energy pilfered and further directed the petitioner to refer the dispute relating to final liability under Section 154(5) of the Act to the competent Court. However, the Special Court raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of suit/application under Section 154(5) of A.P Electricity Act for determination of civil liability.

5. It is stated that the appellant re-submitted the suit/application with an endorsement stating that the explanation to sub-Section (6) of Section 154 of the Act defines “civil liability” as loss of damage incurred by the Electricity Board due to the commission of an offence referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act. As per the definition of civil liability under the explanation to Section 154(6) of the Act, the term „civil liability‟ under Section 154(5) refers to civil liability arising due to the commission of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Therefore