Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sudhir Kr. Mondal & Anr vs The West Bengal State Electricity on 16 May, 2012
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
(62) 16.05.2012 W. P. No. 18100 (W) of 2009
ah
Sudhir Kr. Mondal & Anr.
-vs-
The West Bengal State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharyya
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumit Kr. Panja
... for the WBSEDCL.
The writ petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter
alia, praying for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,46,139/- which
was paid by them under the provisions of Section 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 in response to the provisional/
final assessment bill raised by the respondent authorities.
The gist of the contention of the writ petitioners is that in the criminal proceeding alleging theft of electricity, the petitioners have been acquitted. Such order of acquittal was passed on 9.10.2007 after a full-fledged trial. It is, therefore, prayed by the petitioners that since the criminal court has acquitted them of the charge of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the final bill raised and duly paid by them in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, shall stand nullified and the said amount ought to be refunded to them.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had been tried in accordance with law and acquitted of the charge of theft of electricity. If that be so, then the provisional/final bill raised upon the petitioners for non-payment of 2 unauthorised use of electricity does not and cannot stand and they are entitled to refund of the amount unjustly realised from them.
Mr. Panja, learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL, submits that the proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act are independent from the criminal proceedings and the findings of the criminal proceedings cannot have any impact, far less binding effect, in respect of the decision of the statutory authorities in adjudicating the loss for unauthorised use of electricity and raising bill upon the consumer thereof. I have heard the submissions of the parties. It is clear from an examination of the scheme of Electricity Act, 2003, the adjudication of claims for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act operates in an entirely different field from a prosecution of an offence under Section 135 of the said Act. There may be cases where an individual may be subject to both the proceedings simultaneously. In spite of that, the purpose and object of the two proceedings are entirely different. One is to ascertain the liability for unauthorised use of electricity and the other is to punish an offender for committing a crime. The standard of proof of the proceedings are also different. The criminal proceedings require a higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to bring home a conviction while the adjudication 3 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act is not subject to the principles of strict proof. Moreover, the liability under Section 126 of the Electricity Act arises on mere finding of unauthorised user while the ingredients of the offence of Section 135 of the Electricity Act which require to be proved are quite different.
For such reasons, I am unable to accept the argument that the finding of the criminal court would have a binding effect on the action of the statutory authority and would nullify the bill raised on a consumer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Such an inference is wholly untenable in law and not evident from the scheme of the legislation.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not feel that the petitioners are entitled to refund of the amount paid by them in response to the final assessment bill raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 merely on the ground that they have been acquitted of the charge of theft of electricity. If they were aggrieved by the final bill raised upon them, their remedy lay in filing appeal before the appropriate statutory authority under the provisions of the Electricity Act. They have chosen not to do so. Therefore, the payment made by them in terms of the said final bill has become final and binding by and between the parties. The same cannot be reopened after an order of acquittal in the criminal proceeding on the charge of theft 4 of electricity where standard of proof is much more stricter than the principles on which assessment and adjudication of objections thereto are made by statutory authorities under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
I, therefore, hold that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )