1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1605 of 2019  Sunil Kumar Sao S/o Late Beerji Sao Aged About 51 Years R/o Camp 1 Bhilai, P.S.- Chawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Executive Director, Durg Circle, Raipur Naka, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Power House Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 08-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities Rs.2,03,176/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.08 18:15:40 +0530 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner for return of amount of Rs.2,03,176/-in an objective manner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay Rs. One Lack as compensation for the mental agony caused to the petitioner for instituting a false case against the petitioner relating to theft of electricity causing disrepute to the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of the petition be allowed. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. 2) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits the that order passed under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is appealable according to the provisions of Section 127 of Act, 2003. He further submits that petitioner failed to avail the efficacious statutory alternative remedy and instead directly approached this Court, therefore this petition is not maintainable. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the criminal case registered under the provisions of Section 135 of Act, 2003, petitioner has been acquitted by the competent criminal court and said order has been affirmed by the High Court, therefore no case is made out against the petitioner and the order imposing provisional assessment of unauthorized use of electricity to the tune of Rs. 2,03,176/- is bad in law. 4) Heard. 3 5) Taking into consideration the fact that order of provisional assessment for unauthorized use of electricity issued by the respondent authorities under provisions of Section 126 of Act, 2003 is appealable, therefore I am not inclined to entertain this petition. 6) However, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to prefer appeal before the State Commission according to the provisions of Section 127 of Act, 2003. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the authority concerned is directed to decide the same on its own merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a