Refund mandated for amounts paid under unfounded allegations of theft as no evidence was presented.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was provided with a single-phase electricity connection bearing Consumer No.C1165333017905 with a connected load of 2560 watts under the LT 1A tariff by the first respondent Board. On an inspection conducted on 02.03.2020, it was found that the petitioner's meter was hanging upside down (in a toppled-over condition). The officials of the Board alleged theft of electrical energy and accordingly prepared a site mahazar, after which the service connection was disconnected.

2. A provisional assessment order was also issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act for an amount of Rs.77,363/- on 02.03.2020. The petitioner paid the entire amount on the same day, and Ext.P2 is the receipt showing the same. The petitioner had compounded the offence under the provisions of Section 152 of the , for which he had to pay an amount of Rs.28,820/-, for which Ext.P3 receipt was issued. After making the above payments, the petitioner challenged the provisional and the final assessment bill, and the petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 127 of the , in which Ext.P5 order was passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal with a finding that there was no proof or evidence to establish the act of theft or dishonest intention. Accordingly, the final assessment order dated 30.05.2020 was set aside, and the amount remitted by the petitioner was directed to be refunded with interest. The board, in terms of the said order, repaid the amount with interest, as directed by the appellate authority on 24.06.2022.

3. This writ petition is filed, contending that the amount of Rs.28,820/- remitted by the petitioner was not returned.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the said amount was paid towards the compounding of the offence under Section 152 of the Electricity Act , and there is no direction in the order of the appellate authority to return the same, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim a refund of the said amount.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on Ext.P5 order to argue that the appellate authority has found that there was no evidence of any theft or dishonest intention. The entire allegation raised against the petitioner having been found to be wrong, the Board cannot be allowed to retain the amount of Rs.28,820/-.

6. On going through Ext.P5 order of the appellate authority, which has become final and which has been implemented by the Board, a clear finding is that there is no evidence of theft or dishonest intention. Under such circumstances, the Board cannot be allowed to retain the amount of Rs.28,820/- paid by the petitioner, which was done on the same day when the Board made the allegation of theft. Taking note of the findings in the order of the appellate authority, which has become final, I am inclined to direct the Board to return the said amount within a period of one year without interest, as the entire allegation of theft is found to be wrong in Ext.P5 order.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and there will be a direction to the respondents to refund/adjust the amount of Rs.28,820/- against the bills to be issued and to pay the entire amount within a period of one year from 19.01.2026.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-