Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirmal Lohiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
WP-16650-2021
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.16650 of 2021 (PIL)
[Nirmal Lohiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others)
Jabalpur, Dated: 08-09-2021
Mr. Rahul Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents-State.
This writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Nirmal Lohiya challenging the order dated 24.08.2021 issued by the Energy Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. By the aforesaid order, the Government in view of the National Lok Adalat scheduled to be convened on 11th of September, 2021 by following all the COVID-19 protocol, has decided to give rebate to the extent of 30% on the dues payable to the company with waiver of interest at the stage of pre-litigation and rebate of 20% with waiver of interest in the pending cases.
The contention of the petitioner is that Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 provides for establishment of CERC and SERCS with the objective of rationalization of tariff and electricity and promote competition, efficiency and economy in electricity industry to regulate the operation of the power system and to regulate the working of the licensees with an overall objectives of improving the financial health of the State Electricity Board and its Electricity Utilities. Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the "Act of 2003") provides function of the State WP-16650-2021 [2] Commission, one of which is to determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity wholesale, bulk or retail as the case may be within the State. As per Chapter-X of the Electricity Supply Code, 2013 the assessment of civil liability in the case of theft has been provided, according to which "double the amount has to be recovered as penalty". Despite the fact that there is no provision for giving rebate and concession, the aforesaid order has been illegally passed for giving rebate/concession on the principal amount of civil liability with waiver of interest, whereas those who are guilty of committing theft are not entitled to any such relief. It is argued that those who are found committing theft of the electricity are liable to be prosecuted under Section 135 of the Act of 2003. Proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 bars jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 indicates that a decision has been taken pursuant to the request of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority for settling disputes at pre-litigation stage as well as at pending litigation stage. For giving rebate and waiver of interest, reasonable conditions have been imposed, as evident from Para-3 of the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2021, one of which is that the benefit of such scheme be granted to the applicant only in the first instance of the electricity theft/unauthorized use and in such cases where the applicant is found to have already availed the similar benefit in the earlier Lok Adalat, he may not be entitled for getting such benefit of the scheme. This is WP-16650-2021 [3] onetime waiver granted in the National Lok Adalat convened on 11.09.2021.
Section 152 of the Act of 2003 provides for compounding of offences in respect of industrial service, commercial service, agricultural service and other services. This provision starts with non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appropriate Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf may accept from any consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, a sum of money by way of compounding of the offences as specified in the table below:
Nature of Service Rate at which the sum of
money for compounding to be
collected per kilowatt
(KW)/Horse Power (HP)or
part thereof for Low Tension
(LT) supply and per Kilo Volt
Ampere (KVA) of contracted
demand for High Tension
(HT)
1. Industrial Service twenty thousand rupees;
2. Commercial Service ten thousand rupees;
3. Agricultural Service two thousand rupees;
4. Other Services four thousand rupees;
The proviso to Section 152 of the Act of 2003 itself stipulates that the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, amend the rates specified in the table above. It cannot therefore be accepted that the appropriate Government, which in the present case is the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, does not have any power to grant WP-16650-2021 [4] any such rebate or waiver of interest, even in the case of first instance. The second proviso to Section 135 of the Act of 2003 itself makes distinction between second and subsequent cases of electricity theft, thus the legislative policy appears to be slightly lenient while dealing with the cases of first case of the theft of electricity.
In view of the above, we see no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
s@if
Digitally signed by SACHIN CHAUDHARY
Date: 2021.09.14 18:48:20 +05'30'