Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd & Anr vs Ashok Kumar & Anr on 5 December, 2014
216+217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14746 OF 2013
Date of Decision:05.12.2014
Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Kumar and another
....Respondents
CWP No.14748 OF 2013
Date of Decision:05.12.2014
Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. Through its M.D. and anr.
..... Petitioners
Versus
Lavkesh Kumar and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
The respective petitioners are in challenge against the orders of SDM- 2nd respondent directing refunds of the amounts collected by the petitioner- Corporation from the respondent for the assessment made for theft of electricity. The facts of the cases which are similar are brought from CWP-14746 of 2013. The notices issued after the check report under Annexure P-2 on 09.01.2013, the specific attribute of theft to the respondent was as follows:-
"From the main PVC joint, one separate wire is connected to the house load. Meter is not running. Case is of power theft.
S. Load : 6.97."
The provisional assessment was carried out in the manner set down in POOJA SHARMA 2014.12.17 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWPs No.14746 & 14778 of 2013 -2- the Regulations brought under the Act for theft of electricity which provides the formula to be LDH x Kilowatt, as per notification issued in 2007 called Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Commission Supply Code and related matters Regulation of 2007. The notice also provided that he would deposit Rs.21,000/- as compounding charges if he wanted to save himself from the criminal proceedings. The provisional assessment made a specific reference to the period of 7 days before when he could cause his representation and it was also informed to him that he could prefer an appeal against that order before the Additional Sessions Judge as per the notification issued in 2007.
The consumer brought a challenge before the SDM- 2nd respondent on a plea that a case of theft cannot be attributed through this notice and the content of notice revealed that it was only a case of an unauthorized user. The provisions of Sections 126 and 135 operate in different fields though too seemingly certain overlapping between the definition of Section 126(6)(b) defining unauthorised use of electricity and theft as defined in Section 135 (1). These are two distinct provisions and they cannot be taken as any illegal obstructing cannot be taken as unauthorized use was considered by Division Bench of this Court. The attributes made against the consumer, namely, that there was one separate wire which was connected to the household was surely an imputation of tapping of electricity connection with overhead as contemplated under Section 135(A) and that the meter was not running was again a case of an apparatus which was not working, which could come under Sections 135(b) and 135(C). Notice issued admitted of no doubt at all that a clear charge of theft was attributed to the consumer and it is futile on the part of the consumer to contend that there was no case of theft and the notice issued under Section 135 must be read as a notice under Section 126. The SDM-2nd respondent has no power to interfere with the assessment of theft which was made final when no objective was given and the Electricity Corporation had a full right to recover the amount as assessed and also proceed to disconnect for theft POOJA SHARMA 2014.12.17 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWPs No.14746 & 14778 of 2013 -3- in the light of the power vested under Section 135(1)(A). This will also be without provides for prosecuting a consumer for theft under Section 153 before the special Court. The jurisdiction exercised by the SDM-2nd respondent was wholly without any legal authority. The proceedings & decision by him are quashed.
Writ petitions are allowed on the above terms.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE December05, 2014 ps-I POOJA SHARMA 2014.12.17 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document