- (1.) With the consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a case of theft of electricity was detected by the respondents and thereupon FIR was registered. The petitioner has already deposited the compounding charges but connection has not been restored. A direction is thus sought on the respondents to restore the connection. It is moreso when compounding charges were paid in pursuance of direction of this court.
(3.) The respondents have erroneously taken a plea regarding non-deposition of provisional amount towards civil liability ignoring the fact that theft cases have to be dealt with as per Section 135 read with Section 154 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (in short "Act, 2003"). The determination of civil liability can be made only by the Special Court. The respondents themselves have admitted that Section 126 of the Act, 2003 has no application to the instant case. In view of the above, they were under an obligation to restore the electricity connection on payment of compounding charges and so far as civil liability is concerned, it can be demanded on its determination by the Special Court as given under Section 154 of the Act, 2003. Reference of judgment of this court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) WLC 290 has been given. Therein, similar controversy was determined and it was held that the provisional assessed amount of civil liability cannot be enforced by the respondents. A direction was given to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner. In view of the above, writ petition may be allowed with the direction to the respondents to restore the electricity connection.;