Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs Gurpreet Singh And Another on 3 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
1
RSA-439-2025
2025 (O&M)
[137] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-439
439-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 03.02.2026
Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vikran Nigam and another ...Appellants
versus
Gurpreet Singh and another ....Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.
****
PANKAJ JAIN,
JAIN J. (ORAL)
[1] Defendant is in appeal. For convenience the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of First Instance i.e., the appellant as defendant and the respondent as plaintiff.
[2] The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the checking report dated 20.09.2014, the demand raised vide memos No.1881 and 1882 both dated 28.10.2014, as well as the short assessment memo No.175 dated 06.07.2015, be declared illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. A further relief of permanent injunction was sought ought restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity connection of the plaintiff and from effecting recovery of the amount of ₹42,287/--.
[3] The plaintiff is a consumer of electricity supplied by the defendant. On 20.09.2014, the officials of the defendant department conducted a checking of the premises of the plaintiff and allegedly found 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:37 ::: 2 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) that the electricity meter installed at the premises did not tally with the serial number recorded in the official records of the Nigam. Consequent Consequently thereto, theret the plaintiff was served with demand notices by the defendant alleging commission of theft of electricity.
[4] The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
[5] Aggrieved ggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court.
[6] The Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. While upholding the finding of the learned Trial Court declaring the assessment orders to be illegal, null and void, the Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal to the extent of the declaration with regard to the notice of compounding, holding that the notice of compounding as well as the checking checking report could not be termed as unlawful or unjustified.
[7] Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that although theft of electricity has been alleged against the plaintiff consumer, till date neither any FIR has been registered nor any complaint has been filed before the competent court, as contemplated under the bare provisions of law. He, however, submits that the consumer could not have approached the Civil Court, as the jurisdiction to try cases relating to theft of electricity under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vests exclusively with the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the said Act. He submits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of the electricity electricit act, 2003.
2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 ::: 3 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) [8] The issue w.r.t procedure to be followed in the case of theft and the effect thereof on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been elaborately explained by this Court in RSA No.1952 of 2024 titled as 'Sub Divisional Devi', decided on 27.10.2025 after Officer and another vs. Smt. Kamla Devi' considering the ratio of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in RSA No.4181 of 2016 titled as 'Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officers and another' decided on 14.05.2025 14.05.2025.. This Court concluded as a under:
"xxx xxx xxx
20. Likewise Chapter VIII has been incorporated in the Punjab Supply Code, 2014. Chapter VIII in the Supply Code, 2014 deals with unauthorized use of electricity and theft of electricity in State of Punjab.
21. In view of the discussion held hereinabove and the scheme of the Act of 2003, it is held as under:
(i) Once theft of electricity is discovered by the authorities, they are empowered to disconnect the supply of electricity. Under Section 145 of 2003 Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking injunction on such act by an officer/authority empowered under 2003 Act to disconnect the electricity.
(ii) Within 24 hours of such disconnection, competent officer is obligated to lodge complai complaint, in writing, relating to commission of theft of electricity in police station having jurisdiction.
(iii) In case, the consumer pays the assessed amount of electricity charges, the electricity will be restored within 48 hours of such deposit. However, iit needs to be noticed herein that such assessment and corresponding deposit, is without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint in writing.
(iv) The Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 135 of the Act upon a complaint, in writin writing, 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 ::: 4 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) made by competent officer/authority or upon report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
(v) Offences prescribed under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150, are cognizable and non non-bailable offences.
(vi) Once the police takes cognizanc cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150, the first time offender can claim compounding of offence, as prescribed under Section 152. If the payment is made, a person in custody in connection with the offence, has to be set at liberty and no proceedings be instituted or continued against him in any criminal Court.
(vii) Acceptance of such payment, shall amount to acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., 1973.
(viii) States may notify in the official gazette Speci Special Courts to try offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 with the object of providing speedy trial. In terms of Section 153 Constitution of Special Courts under the 2003 Act, is for purpose of trying offence referred to in Sections 135 35 to 140 and Section 150.
Determination of civil liability being incidental and dependant upon criminal liability of offender, Special Court has no power to grant injunction on disconnection of supply of electricity under Section 135 of the Act or jurisd jurisdiction to enterain such plea.
(ix) Any offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150, is triable only by the Special Court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence has been committed.
(x) The offence has to be tried by Special Court as a summary trial in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(xi) The Special Court has to determine the Civil liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money qua theft of energy. The same shall not 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 ::: 5 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate, applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft or the exact period of theft, if determined, whichever is less.
(xii) The amount of the civil liabilit liability, so determined, is to be enforced like a Civil Court decree.
(xiii) The civil liability determined by the Special Court needs to be adjusted/set off against the amount deposited by the consumer subsequent to registration of case.
22. In view of above, this Court finds that the Division Bench having relied upon powers conferred by Section 154 to hold that the jurisdiction of Civil Court, is barred in the case of theft of energy, the ratio can be relied upon by the supplier only in the cases wherein compliance iance has been made to the provisions of Section 135. Which means that only when a complaint has been lodged by the competent officer/authority regarding theft of energy and the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offence pursuant to filing of such complaint or filing of police report as per Section 151 of 2003 Act, the jurisdiction can be said to be barred invoking Section 154 of the Act of 2003.
23. In the absence of there being any complaint filed before the Special Court or FIR registered by the police authorities, the allegations of theft of energy, cannot assume the status of offence. In all those cases, where there is no FIR registered by the police authorities and/or complaint filed by the competent authorities before the Special Courts, the consumer is well within his right to approach the Civil Court alleging violation of the law and procedure prescribed therein. Reliance can be placed upon ratio of law laid down by Five Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai etc. vs. State of M.P. and anr, 1969 AIR (Supreme Court) 78 wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:
"32. xxxxx. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressed in this Court may be stated as follows ::-
5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 ::: 6 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) (1) Where the statute gives a finality to the or orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or li liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals.
(4) When a provision ision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but itt is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.
(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particula particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.
6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 ::: 7 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply."
24. It also needs to be noticed herein that the 'assessed amount' as contemplated under 3rd proviso appended to Section 135(1A) is not relatable to assessment provided under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The same rather refers to the amount assessed as per procedure prescribed by State Commissions in the Electricity Supply pply Code under Section 50 of the 2003 Act pursuant to the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2005, dated 08.06.2005.
25. Applying the aforesaid parameters to the present case, this Court finds that it is case where there is neither any FIR regis registered qua offence punishable under Section 135 nor any complaint preferred before the Special Court notified under Section 153, the jurisdiction of Civil Court, cannot be held to be barred invoking Section 154 of 2003 Act.
xxx xxx xxx" [9] In view of above, this Court finds that police authorities or the
Court of the Competent Jurisdiction having not taken cognizance of the allegations levelled by the defendant, offence of theft cannot be claimed to have been committed by the plaintiff. Thu Thus, s, the issue of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is answered against the defendant/appellant.
[10] It is held that the bar under Section 145 of the 2003 Act, does not operate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
[11] No other point hass been argued.
[12] Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed dismissed.
7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 ::: 8 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) [13] Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 03.02.2026 'R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 06:13:38 :::