AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri W.H. Khan and Shri Rajendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Shri V.S. Mishra, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri A.K. Sand, learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) SINCE all the above-mentioned writ petitions involve the same questions of fact and law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common interim order. However, for convenience we are taking up writ petitions No. 15622 of 2006 (Udai Veer Vs. State of U.P. and others), 15687 of 2006 (Ram Chandra Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others) and 1190 of 2007 (Parasu Ram Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) as leading cases in which counter affidavits have been filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited or the State. All the above-mentioned writ petitions have been filed challenging the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners inter alia under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of first information reports essentially relating to the theft of electricity. It may be mentioned that by means of an earlier leading writ petition No. 10090 of 2005, Mustaq Vs. State of U.P. and others (reported in 2006(6) ALJ 257 which was connected with a large number of writ petitions, orders were passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Shiv Shankar, JJ on 15.9.2006 disposing of the writ petitions with certain directions. It was held in the said decision that the offence of theft of electricity could not be made a cognizable offence with the aid of Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 as the said offence was non-cognizable in view of Section 151 of the Electricity Act. However, as stealing of electricity was a social crime, which infringed the personal right of a citizen in all possible manner in respect of an essential service, causing suffering to honest consumers of electricity, hence till the Act was amended, the police officer or appropriate authority under the Electricity Act could make applications before the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigating criminal cases against offenders. The Division Bench concluded its judgement with the following words: "Necessary applications can be made by the appropriate authority and/or by the police to the Court of competent jurisdiction to obtain leave and/or permission for necessary investigation of the individual cases. After obtaining such leave/permission there will be no bar for them to investigate and/or arrest an offender or offenders. The arrest of the petitioners is stayed for a period of one month or till after order of the Court of competent jurisdiction to investigate the matter, whichever is earlier. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of."
(3.) TO our dismay although the said judgement was delivered 5 months ago, we find that neither the police, nor the electricity department/ power corporation has taken any steps in furtherance of the said decision for obtaining permission from the competent Court for investigating cases against the accused, in blatant violation of the mandate of the earlier Division Bench to obtain the said permission within one month of the order.;