- (1.) The writ petition challenges an order issued by the authority for alleged offence of theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner cites the provision under Section 135 that defines theft of energy and the said provision provides for certain punishments on the basis of the gravity of the offence including imprisonment and for fine. Section 152 provides for compounding of offence and special courts are constituted for speedy disposal under Sections 135 to 142 and 150. The petitioner would point out that if there is a theft of energy they have no power at all to demand a particular amount as payable, for, that shall be done under Section 126. Section 126 contemplates making a provisional assessment within the time frame and passing the final assessment on the basis of reply and if a person is aggrieved by such an order he will have an independent power of appeal under Section 127. The contention is that since the impugned order is purported to be a demand for payment being not issued under Section 126, the proceedings are required to be quashed. The petitioner states that his own case filed in CWP No. 14008 of 2014 this Court has ordered notice of motion and that recoveries will not be made.
(2.) I find that there is a clear misreading of the purported assessment made which is impugned in the writ petition. Part XIV details offences and penalties and Part XV establishes special courts for dealing with the offences and Section 135 itself defines a theft of energy to include five different circumstances. In this case, we are concerned about a notice issued on 18.11.2003 that recites a fact that an inspection was carried out and it was found that there had been a theft/dishonest use of electricity, for, in that load LL 1268/97 had been connected. The meters had been seized and the inspection was said to reveal that the petitioner was indulging in theft of electricity. The notice issued on 18.11.2013 makes an assessment of theft of electricity and sets out an amount of '9,91,480/- as the amount payable. It also states that if the petitioner accepted the assessment and deposited 100% of the amount, supply would be restored within 48 hours and in case of default, he would also be liable to pay interest. Independent of this notice which is issued under Annexure P-1 a notice is issued to the petitioner again on 18.11.2013 on the same day allowing for compounding of offences if he was prepared to pay a compounding fee of '1,18,000/-. Apart from the notice, a criminal complaint has also been lodged for commission of theft in FIR No. 845 dated 22.5.2014. The petition is now challenges this notice.
(3.) A fine could be imposed for theft of electricity under Section 135. Where in a case the load abstracted, consumed or used did not exceed 10 Kilo watts the fine imposed should not be less than 3 times the financial gain and if it exceeded 10 Kilo watts the fine imposed on first connection shall not be less than 3 times the financial gain. Clause 1-A of Section 135 empowers the licensee or supplier on detection of theft of electricity to immediately disconnect the supply of electricity. Clause 2 of Section 135 authorizes the licensee to enter, inspect and break open any premises and also search, seize and remove other devices. The right to disconnect and enter open the premises and make an inspection are available under Section 135 and the extent to which the notice details the act of disconnection and an opportunity given to the petitioner to make the payment by this cannot be said to be bad.;