Ram Murti vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Anr

Neutral Citation Number 2023:PHHC:090164 Page No. -:1:- Case Number CR-3309-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-3309-2017 Date of Decision:-18.07.2023

RAM MURTI ... Petitioner Versus UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ANR ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

-.-

Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for UHBVNL-respondents.

-.-

KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed by petitioner-Ram Murti

against the order dated 10.3.2017 passed by the Special Court, Ambala

(Constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003), whereby

petition filed by the petitioner under Section 154-B of Electricity Act,

2003 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed been not maintainable.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner received assessment

order bearing No.A33/2014/2 dated 3.1.2014, whereby the petitioner

1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2023 23:40:42 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:090164

Neutral Citation Number 2023:PHHC:090164 Page No. -:2:- Case Number CR-3309-2017

was asked to deposit amount of `1,23,698/- on the basis of inspection,

as per which the electricity connection of the petitioner was checked

by the officials of respondent No.1 and thereafter the petitioner

deposited the aforesaid amount along with compounding charges and

the offence with regard to theft/misuse of electricity was compounded.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 10.3.2017 has filed the

present revision petition, which is being resisted by the learned Senior

Counsel for respondents.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that payment of assessed

amount and compounding charges i.e. `1,39,698/- in total was

deposited with the respondents only under protest. It is further

submitted that Special Court, Ambala is having jurisdiction to deal

with the matter as per the provisions of Section 154(5) of the Act,

which authorizes the Special Court to determine the civil liability

against a consumer in terms of money for theft of energy. So prayer is

made that the present petition be allowed and the special Court

Ambala be given direction to proceed further in the matter in

accordance with law.

5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents

while supporting the impugned order submits that the petitioner made

payment of assessed amount along with compounding charges and

accordingly, the offence was compounded. He further submits that as

the offence with regard to theft of energy was compounded, it cannot

be said that total payment of `1,39,698/- was made by the petitioner

2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2023 23:40:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:090164

Neutral Citation Number 2023:PHHC:090164 Page No. -:3:- Case Number CR-3309-2017

under protest. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further

submits that the Special Court is having no jurisdiction to adjudicate

civil liability under Section 154 of the Act. In support of his

contention the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has placed

reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.20842 of 2017 titled as North Delhi Power Limited (now

known as Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) vs. Devinder Singh

and Another decided on 4.12.2017.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly in the present case offfence was compounded by the

concerned authorities on payment of assessed amount and

compounding charges i.e. in total `1,39,698/- by the petitioner with

the department. So it is evident that no criminal proceedings were

pending against the petitioner under Sections 135 to 140 and Section

150 of the Act, when he filed petition under Section 154-B of the Act

to challenge checking report dated 5.12.2013, assessment order dated

3.1.2014 and notice for compounding offence of theft of electricity

dated 1.3.2014 and further sought refund of `1,39,698/-.

8. In Devinder Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

allowing the appeal filed by North Delhi Power Ltd. clearly held that

that special Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit in

absence of pendency of criminal proceedings of offences under

Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act and while passing the

said order the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:-

3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2023 23:40:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:090164

Neutral Citation Number 2023:PHHC:090164 Page No. -:4:- Case Number CR-3309-2017

"The procedure and power of the Special Court is laid down

under Section 154 of the Act, including the power to levy a penalty

which is referred as "civil liability" under Section

154(5) and 154(6) of the Act. Section 155 states that the Special

Court is to have the powers of a Court of Sessions, and Section

157 of the Act vests the Special Court with a power of Review.

Under Section 156 of the Act, appeals and revisions that are

available against the Court of Sessions and that are provided under

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can also be availed of.

It is clear from a perusal of the aforesaid sections that the

Special Electricity Court acts as a Court of Sessions and has been

set up to try offences that are committed under the Act. By no

stretch of imagination can it be stated that a civil suit would be

within the jurisdiction of such Court. We are, therefore, of the view

that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside."

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in

Devinder Singh's case (supra), it is evident that Special Court

constituted under Section 153 of the Act do not have jurisdiction to

entertain, try and decide civil liability in absence of pendency of trial

of offence referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the

Act.

10. Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being

devoid of merits.

( KARAMJIT SINGH) 18.07.2023 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot

Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:090164

4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2023 23:40:43 :::