- (1.) On an inspection said to have been made on 02.02.2010 by various officers of the Power Corporation at the factory premises of the petitioner, it was reported to have been noticed that there had been a tampering of the electricity meter by the fact that the insulation of the secondary wires of all three phases of CT were peeled off and the loops of thin wires were put in all the three phases, thus creating two parallel paths instead of one for current from secondary of CTs to the meter. In this way, the current contribution from the CTs going to the meter was reduced and thereby the petitioner was pegging down the recording of energy consumption in the meter and indulging in the theft of energy. A provisional assessment of Rs. 2,05,83,705/- for theft of energy was made on 03.02.2010 and the amount was demanded through notice prepared on 01.08.2011 and also through a letter dated 02.08.2011 requiring the amount to be paid within 3 days, after simultaneously disconnecting the electricity connection. The petitioner had approached this court by means of a writ petition in CWP No.4528 of 2010 with an interim prayer for restoration of electricity. The restoration had been ordered on interim direction on payment of Rs. 25 lakhs and odd and the electricity supply had been restored. It had been pointed out in reply by the Corporation that the petitioner could give a representation against the provisional assessment and invite authority to pass a final order. On the directions given by the court on 30.05.2011, the petitioner had given his objections which were dealt with and a final assessment had been made, confirming the provisional assessment already made and calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance of amount after deducting Rs. 25,36,500/- deposited by the petitioner as per the direction of the High Court. This final assessment had been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) It is contended, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable and the assessment of civil liability has to be determined only by the Special Court before which the case is pending. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the criminal offence of theft before the Special Court and the civil liability could be determined only by the Special Court and the same cannot be brought for a challenge even before the conclusion of proceedings before the Special Court. The writ petition itself is not maintainable.
(3.) This court has had an occasion to deal with the limit of challenge that is possible in a writ petition of complaint of theft and the assessment of final order on the charges of theft. I am not reproducing the reasons given in the said judgment, but I have held in the matter in CWP No.12600 of 2011 that a consumer will not have a right of appeal against the determination of civil liability for the theft before the Special Court unless there is prosecution of the criminal offence before the Special Court and if the Power Corporation had not resorted to such prosecution beyond service of final order of assessment a challenge before the High Court through Article 226 has not barred, but the limit of challenge shall be restricted to examination of violation of any of the statutory regulations and the impermissibility for allowing for the final order to prevail and carry out disconnection of electricity.;