Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order/memo No.3314/FS dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), order/memo No.3429/FS-600 dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P-5), passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.4, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the provisional orders of assessment for Unauthorized Use of Electricity (hereinafter referred to as 'UUE') has been rejected by the Appellate Authority.

Briefly summarized, the case of the petitioner is that he was having an electricity connection in his name bearing Account No.SP 57/05, through which the petitioner used to run his flour mill to earn his livelihood. A provisional order of assessment for UUE under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:001341 2003 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 on 08.12.2008 as per which it was pointed out that during the inspection of the premises held on 06.12.2008, the M.E. seals of the electricity meter were found to be tampered with, thus resulting in the meter being slowed down to an extent of 56%. A provisional assessment of Rs.1,51,700/- was conveyed to the petitioner. Objections against the aforesaid provisional assessment was submitted by the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner was informed that the amount has been reduced to Rs.1,07,187/- and was to be deposited by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dismissal of the appeal by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa is erroneous and abdication of power inasmuch as it was a case of assessment under Section 126 of the 2 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:001341 Electricity Act, 2003 for UUE. The Appellate Authority viz. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa was authorized and empowered to decide the said appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it has proceeded on a wrong and erroneous assumption that it was a case of theft of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the appeal preferred by the petitioner- complainant has not been examined on merits. He contends that he has already deposited the entire assessed amount, however, as the issue has not been rightly adjudicated and examined on merits, the present petition has been preferred.

Counsel for the respondent-PSPCL was asked a specific query as to whether the case pertained to the theft of energy or it was a case of UUE. He has not been able to controvert that the argument fact that it was not a case of theft of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the provisional and final assessments in the present case had been done under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, hence, an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was maintainable before the Appellate Authority notified under the Electricity Supply Code and the Regulations framed thereunder by the appropriate Commission.