Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sub Divisional Officer Op vs Sunita And Anr on 4 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.02.2026
Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Sunita and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Surinder K. Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM No.13601-C of 2023 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the instant appeal.
For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of 56 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M)1. Defendant No.2 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 No.2 and respondent No.1 as plaintiff, respondent No.2 as defendant No.1.
DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 22. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the checking report dated 22.07.2015, order of assessment bearing memo No.2061, dated 23.07.2015 and notice of compounding bearing memo No.2017, dated 23.07.2015, be declared illegal, null and void with the relief of permanent injunction for restraining defendants from recovering the amount imposed vide the above notices.
3. The plaintiff is a consumer of electricity supplied by the defendant. She was served with the demand notices by the defendants alleging 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 by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.
6. The Appellate Court finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same. The judgement and decree dated 17.08.2019 passed by the Trial Court stand upheld and affirmed.
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 DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 3 (hereinafter referred to as '2003 Act') 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 2003 Act.
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 Officer and another vs. Smt. Kamla Devi', decided on 27.10.2025 after 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. This Court concluded as 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 complaint, in writing, DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 4 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, it 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 writing, 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-bailable offences.
(vi) Once the police takes 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 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 to 140 and Section 150.
Determination of civil liability being incidental and dependant upon criminal liability of offender, DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 5 Special Court has no power to grant injunction on disconnection of supply of electricity under Section 135 of the Act or 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 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 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 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 DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 6 151 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 :-
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the 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 liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 7 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 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 it 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 particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.
(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 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 registered DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.11 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3800 of 2023 (O&M) 8 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. Thus, 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 has been argued.
12. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
13. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
February 04, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.02.11 15:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document