RSA-439-2025 [137] Dakshin H Vikran Nig Gurpreet Si Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] are referred i.e., the app [2] the effect th memos No assessment void and no sought res connection ₹42,287/- [3] defendant. conducted 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-439 Date of De hin Haryana Bijli an Nigam and another versus reet Singh and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate fo **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendant is in appeal. For co eferred to as by their original position he appellant as defendant and the respo The plaintiff instituted a suit s ffect that the checking report dated 20 os No.1881 and 1882 both dated 2 sment memo No.175 dated 06.07.20 and not binding upon him. A further r ht restraining the defendant from ection of the plaintiff and from effe -. The plaintiff is a consumer dant. On 20.09.2014, the officials ucted a checking of the premises of T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 439-2025 (O&M) of Decision : 03.02.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN cate for the appellants. For convenience the parties hereinaft sition before the Court of First Instanc e respondent as plaintiff. suit seeking a decree of declaration ted 20.09.2014, the demand raised vid ated 28.10.2014, as well as the sho .07.2015, be declared illegal, null an rther relief of permanent injunction wa from disconnecting the electrici effecting recovery of the amount o sumer of electricity supplied by th fficials of the defendant departme es of the plaintiff and allegedly foun 1 reinafter Instance ation to sed vide e short ull and tion was ectricity ount of by the artment y found RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 that the ele number rec the plaintif commission [4] evidence br [5] Court, the d [6] the defend declaring t Appellate C regard to compoundi or unjustifi [7] although th till date nei before the law. He, ho Civil Cour under Secti exclusively Act. He su Section 145 2025 (O&M) he electricity meter installed at the pre er recorded in the official records of laintiff was served with demand no ission of theft of electricity. The Trial Court, upon apprec nce brought on record, decreed the sui Aggrieved by the judgment t, the defendant preferred an appeal be The Lower Appellate Court p defendant. While upholding the find ring the assessment orders to be il llate Court accepted the appeal to th d to the notice of compounding ounding as well as the checking repor justified. Learned counsel for the appell ugh theft of electricity has been allege ate neither any FIR has been registered re the competent court, as contempla He, however, submits that the consum Court, as the jurisdiction to try cas r Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 sively with the Special Court constitu He submits that the jurisdiction of on 145 of the electricity act, 2003. the premises did not tally with the seri rds of the Nigam. Consequently theret and notices by the defendant allegin appreciation of the pleadings and th the suit in favour of the plaintiff. ment and decree passed by the Tri eal before the Lower Appellate Court. ourt partly allowed the appeal filed b e finding of the learned Trial Cou be illegal, null and void, the Low l to the extent of the declaration wi unding, holding that the notice o report could not be termed as unlawf appellant does not dispute the fact th alleged against the plaintiff consume istered nor any complaint has been file templated under the bare provisions o onsumer could not have approached th ry cases relating to theft of electrici n 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ves onstituted under Section 153 of the sa on of the Civil Court is barred und 2 he serial thereto, alleging and the he Trial Court. filed by l Court Lower on with tice of nlawful fact that nsumer, en filed sions of ched the ectricity 03 vests the said d under RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 [8] the effect t explained b Officer an considering RSA No.4 Officers an under: 2025 (O&M) The issue w.r.t procedure to b ffect thereof on the jurisdiction of the ined by this Court in RSA No.1952 o er and another vs. Smt. Kamla De idering the ratio of law laid down by No.4181 of 2016 titled as ‘Mahe ers and another’ decided on 14.05. “xxx xxx 20. Likewise Chapter VIII has b Code, 2014. Chapter VIII in unauthorized use of electricity and t 21. In view of the discussion h Act of 2003, it is held as under: (i) Once theft of ele authorities, they are supply of electricity Act, no Civil Cou entertain an applica act by an officer/au Act to disconnect th (ii) Within 24 hours of officer is obligated relating to commis police station having (iii) In case, the consum electricity charges, within 48 hours of s to be noticed here corresponding depo obligation to lodge t (iv) The Court can take Section 135 of the A re to be followed in the case of theft an of the Civil Court has been elaborate 1952 of 2024 titled as ‘Sub Division la Devi’, decided on 27.10.2025 aft wn by Division Bench of this Court ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Division 14.05.2025. This Court concluded a xxx I has been incorporated in the Punjab Supp II in the Supply Code, 2014 deals wi y and theft of electricity in State of Punjab. sion held hereinabove and the scheme of t f electricity is discovered by the ey are empowered to disconnect the ctricity. Under Section 145 of 2003 il Court shall have jurisdiction to pplication seeking injunction on such icer/authority empowered under 2003 ect the electricity. urs of such disconnection, competent igated to lodge complaint, in writing, ommission of theft of electricity in having jurisdiction. onsumer pays the assessed amount of arges, the electricity will be restored rs of such deposit. However, it needs d herein that such assessment and deposit, is without prejudice to the odge the complaint in writing. take cognizance of an offence under f the Act upon a complaint, in writing, 3 heft and borately visional 25 after Court in visional uded as Supply als with njab. e of the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) made by competent of a police officer Cr.P.C. (v) Offences prescribed Section 150, are offences. (vi) Once the police ta punishable under Se 150, the first time o of offence, as presc payment is made, a with the offence, h proceedings be insti in any criminal Cour (vii) Acceptance of suc acquittal within the Cr.P.C., 1973. (viii) States may notify Courts to try offen 135 to 140 and Se providing speedy tr Constitution of Spec is for purpose of Sections 135 to Determination of civ dependant upon c Special Court has n disconnection of sup 135 of the Act or jur (ix) Any offence punish and Section 150, is t having jurisdiction o has been committed. (x) The offence has to summary trial in a prescribed under Co (xi) The Special Court liability against the of money qua theft petent officer/authority or upon report officer filed under Section 173 of cribed under Sections 135 to 140 or are cognizable and non-bailable ice takes cognizance of the offence der Sections 135 to 140 and Section time offender can claim compounding prescribed under Section 152. If the ade, a person in custody in connection nce, has to be set at liberty and no e instituted or continued against him l Court. f such payment, shall amount to in the meaning of Section 300 of otify in the official gazette Special offences punishable under Sections and Section 150 with the object of edy trial. In terms of Section 153 f Special Courts under the 2003 Act, se of trying offence referred to in 5 to 140 and Section 150. of civil liability being incidental and pon criminal liability of offender, has no power to grant injunction on of supply of electricity under Section t or jurisdiction to enterain such plea. punishable under Sections 135 to 140 50, is triable only by the Special Court ction over the area where the offence mitted. as to be tried by Special Court as a l in accordance with the procedure der Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Court has to determine the Civil st the consumer or a person in terms theft of energy. The same shall not 4 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) be less than an amo the tariff rate, appl months preceding th the exact period of th less. (xii) The amount of the to be enforced like a (xiii) The civil liability d needs to be adjust deposited by the registration of case. 22. In view of above, this Cour having relied upon powers conferr the jurisdiction of Civil Court, is energy, the ratio can be relied up cases wherein compliance has be Section 135. Which means that o lodged by the competent officer/au and the Special Court has taken cog to filing of such complaint or filing 151 of 2003 Act, the jurisdiction ca Section 154 of the Act of 2003. 23. In the absence of there bein Special Court or FIR registered allegations of theft of energy, cann In all those cases, where there is n authorities and/or complaint filed before the Special Courts, the cons approach the Civil Court allegi procedure prescribed therein. Relia law laid down by Five Judges Benc of Dhulabhai etc. vs. State (Supreme Court) 78 wherein th under: “32. xxxxx. The result of this inq in this Court may be stated as foll n amount equivalent to two times of , applicable for a period of twelve ding the date of detection of theft or od of theft, if determined, whichever is f the civil liability, so determined, is like a Civil Court decree. ility determined by the Special Court adjusted/set off against the amount y the consumer subsequent to case. s Court finds that the Division Bench onferred by Section 154 to hold that urt, is barred in the case of theft of ied upon by the supplier only in the has been made to the provisions of that only when a complaint has been cer/authority regarding theft of energy en cognizance of the offence pursuant r filing of police report as per Section tion can be said to be barred invoking e being any complaint filed before the stered by the police authorities, the , cannot assume the status of offence. re is no FIR registered by the police t filed by the competent authorities consumer is well within his right to alleging violation of the law and . Reliance can be placed upon ratio of s Bench of Supreme Court in the case ate of M.P. and anr, 1969 AIR ein the Supreme Court observed as this inquiry into the diverse views expressed as follows :- 5 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) (1) Where the statute special tribunals the ci to be excluded if there civil courts would nor however, does not exclu of the particular Act h statutory tribunal has fundamental principles (2) Where there is an e court, an examination to find the adequacy provided may be relev jurisdiction of the civil Where there is no expr remedies and the schem intendment becomes ne may be decisive. In the statute creates a special determination of the rig that all questions about determined by the tri remedies normally asso prescribed by the said sta (3) Challenge to the pro vires cannot be brought Act. Even the High Co revision or reference from (4) When a provision i the constitutionality of a is open. A writ of certio if the claim is clearly Limitation Act but it is suit. (5) Where the particular of tax collected in exce collected a suit lies. (6) Questions of the cor its constitutionality are f civil suit does not lie declared to be final or particular Act. In either must be examined becau atute gives a finality to the orders of the the civil court's jurisdiction must be held there is adequate remedy to do what the d normally do in a suit. Such provision, t exclude those cases where the provisions Act have not been complied with or the l has not acted in conformity with the ciples of judicial procedure. is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the ation of the scheme of the particular Act uacy or the sufficiency of the remedies relevant but is not decisive to sustain the e civil court. o express exclusion the examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find out the es necessary and the result of the inquiry In the latter case it is necessary to see if the pecial right or a liability and provides for the the right or liability and further lays down about the said right and liability shall be he tribunals so constituted, and whether y associated with actions in civil courts are said statute or not. the provisions of the particular Act as ultra ought before Tribunals constituted under that gh Court cannot go into that question on a ce from the decision of the Tribunals. ision is already declared unconstitutional or ty of any provision is to be challenged, a suit certiorari may include a direction for refund clearly within the time prescribed by the t is not a compulsory remedy to replace a ticular Act contains no machinery for refund n excess of constitutional limits or illegally he correctness of the assessment apart from y are for the decision of the authorities and a ot lie if the orders of the authorities are al or there is an express prohibition in the either case the scheme of the particular Act because it is a relevant enquiry. 6 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 [9] Court of th allegations have been the Civil Co [10] not operate [11] [12] dismissed 2025 (O&M) (7) An exclusion of the readily to be inferred u apply.” 24. It also needs to be noticed h as contemplated under 3rd proviso not relatable to assessment provide Act. The same rather refers to procedure prescribed by State C Supply Code under Section 50 of Electricity (Removal of Diffic 08.06.2005. 25. Applying the aforesaid para Court finds that it is case where the qua offence punishable under Se preferred before the Special Court jurisdiction of Civil Court, cannot Section 154 of 2003 Act. xxx xxx In view of above, this Court f t of the Competent Jurisdiction havi ations levelled by the defendant, offen been committed by the plaintiff. Thu ivil Court is answered against the defe It is held that the bar under S perate in the facts and circumstances o No other point has been argued Finding no merit in the present issed. of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not rred unless the conditions above set down ticed herein that the ‘assessed amount’ roviso appended to Section 135(1A) is rovided under Section 126 of the 2003 fers to the amount assessed as per tate Commissions in the Electricity 50 of the 2003 Act pursuant to the Difficulties) Order, 2005, dated id parameters to the present case, this ere there is neither any FIR registered der Section 135 nor any complaint Court notified under Section 153, the cannot be held to be barred invoking xxx” ourt finds that police authorities or th n having not taken cognizance of th t, offence of theft cannot be claimed f. Thus, the issue of the jurisdiction o e defendant/appellant. nder Section 145 of the 2003 Act, doe nces of the present case. argued. resent appeal, the same is ordered to b 7 s or the of the imed to ction of ct, does ed to be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 [13] 03.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2025 (O&M) Pending application, if any, sh .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable ny, shall also stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 8 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document