- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Memo No.1712 dated 25.8.2007 issued by the respondent no.4, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur, whereby a sum of Rs.13,00,432/- has been assessed as liability of the petitioner in the light of Section 135(b) of the Electricity Act,2003.
(3.) According to the petitioner, the petitioner's premises were raided by a team constituting of engineers and technicians on 4th August,2007. It is stated that the seals of old meter were found tampered by the petitioner and an FIR was lodged against the company, which is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, on 4th August,2007 in Adityapur P.S. under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and Indian Electricity Act for theft of energy. It is submitted that the electric connection was disconnected on 4th August,2007 itself. Thereafter on 6th August,2007 the petitioner was asked to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.20.00 lacs as fine by giving opportunity to show cause by 7th August,2007 before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur, respondent no.4. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 25.8.2007 has been passed assessing a liability of Rs.13,00,432/- in the light of Section 135(b) of the Electricity Act,2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality as the respondents cannot raise a bill under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003 for the alleged theft and FIR against the same. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 135 of the ElectricityAct,2003 it is the competent court having criminal jurisdiction, which upon conclusion of the trial and conviction of the consumer can impose a sentence in the nature of imprisonment and also fine. It is submitted that any assessment in respect of unauthorized use of electricity or alleged theft of electricity can only be made under the provisions of Section 126 of the Act,2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Mosmat Swaran @ Swaran Manraw Vs. State of Bihar & another, 2012 3 JCR 211.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue relating to raising of bill upon detection of theft and lodging of FIR in terms of Section 135 of the Act of 2003 has been discussed and well settled by the aforesaid judgment, which deals with unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity. Further it has been held that in terms of Section 135 the criminal court while imposing sentence can impose a fine to be determined under the procedure prescribed in the Act itself and if the consumer is found to have paid less amount in final settlement, the said excess amount has to be recovered. In any case it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from complete non-application of mind and such a drastic power of imposing punitive bill can only be raised in the manner in which the legislature has mandated and in no other method.;