Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 80
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Smt. Bharati Dangre, J
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Badrinath Pema Rathod – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3425 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. S. Shelke
For the Respondents: Mr. S. P. Koli
The Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate disputes involving electrical theft as they fall under the jurisdiction of Special Courts; proper conciliation must precede any adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135 - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 22
(C) - Dispute regarding electricity theft and assessment bill - The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate theft cases under the Electricity Act, which necessitates prosecution in Special Court - The authority granted relief without conducting required conciliation, thus overstepping its powers - Pre-litigation conciliation was obligatory prior to adjudication in this context. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Permanent Lok Adalat can only deal with compoundable offences; however, if no conciliation is achieved, it cannot adjudicate on the merits of the case - Where allegations of theft exist, recourse to Special Court is mandatory. (Paras 10-15)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was accused of electricity theft, leading to an assessment bill by MSEDCL of Rs. 9,490/-; he contested the bill in Permanent Lok Adalat, seeking cancellation. The Lok Adalat partially allowed the application, ordering regular billing while also including provisions regarding disconnection of supply if unpaid.
Findings of Court:
Permanent Lok Adalat had exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating on a theft charge when it failed to conduct requisite conciliation proceedings. The adjudication infringes upon statutory provisions necessitating that such disputes be resolved at the Special Court level.
Issues: The critical issue was whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had the authority to rule on disputes where the party is accused of a compoundable offence under the Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that the presence of a criminal accusation relating to theft disallowed the Lok Adalat from offering adjudicative relief, emphasizing the need for resolution through criminal proceedings first.
Result: The writ petition is allowed; the Lok Adalat's order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the msedcl challenges the legitimacy of the award directing billing and service provisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the respondent disputes an assessment bill following allegations of electricity theft, seeking cancellation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. jurisdiction issues arise from potential offences and the necessity for adherence to conciliation processes. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. conciliation must precede merits; illegal adjudication for cases with criminal allegations. (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present writ petition, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL), a licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2003 Act’), question the legality of the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aurangabad, in Prelitigation Application Dispute No.44/2018, under which the petitioner has (2) been directed to issue regular bills to the applicant Shri. Badrinath Pema Rathod, who had instituted the said application. Further direction is issued to the applicant to clear the bills and on payment of the same, the petitioner is directed not to disconnect his electricity supply.
2. Heard the learned Counsel Shri. A. S. Shelke for the petitioner and the learned Counsel Shri. S. P. Koli for the respondent.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.
3. Before the merits of the award impugned can be appreciated, it is apposite to refer to the brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned award by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Shri. Badrinath Pema Rathod, resident of Plot No. 48, Bhakti Nagar, Aurangabad, is the owner of the house property situated on the plot and is availing the electricity supply with the consumer number being allotted, for his residential house. On 06/12/2016, the Flying Squad, Jalna, checked his electricity meter, which was found to be tampered, installed a new meter. He was (3)served with the assessment bill of Rs.9,490/-. The assessment was disputed by the respondent and he raised grievance with the petitioner. The Flying Squad, which had checked the meter, since noticed that the respondent was indulged in theft of electricity and an offence came to be registered against him under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. His existing meter was seized as per the prescribed process and a bill was issued to him as per assessment sheet.
4. The respondent being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act ,1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1987 Act’), which was made over to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aurangabad, being registered as Prelitigation Application Dispute No.44/2018.In the said application, he sought the relief of cancellation of the assessment bill issued to him, since it calculated the excess units. Pending hearing of the application, he sought directions to the authority, to issue regular bills to him and not to disconnect his electricity supply. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of the harassment faced by him at the (4) instance of MSEDCL, Shahaganj Division, for mental harassment and economic loss.
The application was contested by the MSEDCL, by submitting that there is no valid, legal and existing cause of action to file the present application and since the application is not maintainable, it should be dismissed. It was specifically pleaded that the applicant was found guilty of theft of electricity and therefore, after removing the old meter, assessment bill was issued to him and a complaint has been lodged by invoking Section 135 of the 2003 Act. In view of the complaint being registered, it was submitted that the claim of cancellation of the electricity bill as per the assessment sheet, cannot be granted and the authority is not competent to direct cancellation of the electricity bill.
The documents in form of the complaint, assessment bill/sheet as well as the spot panchnama of the house of the app
