IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:14.11.2025 BALVIR SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mayank Vashishth, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing bill-cum-assessment order dated 31.12.2021, Annexure P-1, issued by respondents under Regulation 37 of Supply Code-2014 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”).

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a tenant in the premises, where he has installed a welding machine. He asserts that petitioner is drawing electricity from a connection that was allegedly inspected on 31.12.2021 and an incorrect checking report was prepared that he is drawing direct electricity by installing a cable. On its basis, impugned bill, Annexure P-1, has been issued demanding Rs.4,73,156/- as assessment charges and Rs.40,000/- as compounding fee on allegation of theft of energy. Counsel points out that petitioner challenged the bill by filing a suit for declaration and on an application filed by respondents under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, by order dated 05.08.2025, Annexure P-2, Trial Court rejected the plaint by relying upon Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sub Divisional Officer and another 2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 303. Counsel contends that petitioner does not have any other remedy except to approach this Court by way of present petition.

3. Advance copy of the petition has been served upon respondents, who have put in appearance through a counsel and have resisted the petition by making a reference to Sections 153 and 154 of the Act to urge that petitioner has a statutory remedy.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by them, this Court is of the view that instant writ petition is not maintainable. Allegation against petitioner is of having committed theft of electricity. On the basis of a checking report, impugned assessment order, Annexure P-1, has been passed under Section 135 of the Act determining charges for theft of energy and also for compounding the offence. In such circumstances, remedy available to petitioner is to approach the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Act and by virtue of sub section (5) of Section 154, ibid, Special Court is empowered to determine the civil liability.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s Golden Egg Poultry Farm Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (CWP- 2292-2012, decided on 02.08.2012) held that in terms of Section 154 of the Act, Special Court can examine the civil liability and a complete mechanism has been laid down under the statue, which has to be mandatorily followed. It will not be out of place to mention that in Raman Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another (CWP-25760-2025, decided on 01.09.2025), this Court came to the conclusion that a consumer has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Special Court under Sections 153/154 of the Act against determination of charges fastened on account of theft of energy. SLP(C) No.26905 of 2025 challenging the judgment, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22.09.2025.

6. For the afore-going reasons, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is granted to petitioner to approach the Special Court constituted under the Act, if so advised.

14.11.2025 (SUVIR SEHGAL)

sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No