CWP-26709 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 203 Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, North Moga, Punjab State Power Gurjinder Kaur and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. have approach writ in the nature of certiorari Permanent “PLA(PUS)”,. 2. respondent No.1 had purchased connection. On 15 connection change 26709 of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26709 of 2016 Decided on:13.08.2025 Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, North Moga, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Moga and ano Versus Gurjinder Kaur and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Assailing award dated 02.06 have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid award passed by the ermanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) “PLA(PUS)”,. Factual matrix, leading to the filing of the petition respondent No.1 had purchased a residential house alongwith an electric connection. On 15.05.2014, she deposit connection changed to her name and a new connection bearing No.25/444 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 26709 of 2016 Decided on:13.08.2025 Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, North Moga, Corporation Limited Moga and another ...Petitioners ...Respondents SUVIR SEHGAL Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate , Advocate 06.2016, Annexure P-5, petitioners ourt by way of instant writ petition for issuance of quashing the aforesaid award passed by the Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Moga, for short leading to the filing of the petition, is that residential house alongwith an electric he deposited Rs.650/- and got the electric new connection bearing No.25/444 petitioners ourt by way of instant writ petition for issuance of a quashing the aforesaid award passed by the for short is that residential house alongwith an electric and got the electric new connection bearing No.25/444 Sheetal 2025.08.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-26709 was allotted to her raised a charges alleging that respondent No.1 had tampered with the committed theft electricity meter was inspected in the absence and she was never associated with the demanded amount under protest and sen out that the demand notice had been issued in violation of the electricity supply instructions under Section 22 “1987 Act”) settlement, the petitioners interest @ 3. petitioner jurisdiction under pertaining to theft of electricity 4. findings recorded by PLA energy and PLA 5. documents relied upon by counsel for the parties as well as considered the submission 26709 of 2016 -2- was allotted to her. Vide Memo No.15 demand of Rs.59,608/-, besides, charges alleging that respondent No.1 had tampered with the committed theft of electricity. Respondent No.1 claims that the o electricity meter was changed in her absence and was not properly was inspected in the Meters and Equipment and she was never associated with the demanded amount under protest and sent a out that the demand notice had been issued in violation of the electricity upply instructions, but no response was received ection 22-C of the Legal Services “1987 Act”) before PLA(PUS) and when the parties could not reach at a settlement, vide impugned award, Annexure the petitioners were directed to refund the deposited amount along with @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit Without going into the merits of the dispute, counsel for the s has raised an argument that P jurisdiction under Section 22-C of the 1987 pertaining to theft of electricity. Opposing him, counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to the findings recorded by PLA(PUS) to contend that it is not a case of theft of energy and PLA(PUS) has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute I have heard counsel for the parties and examine documents relied upon by counsel for the parties as well as considered the submissions, besides examining the paper book. - 551 dated 16.10.2014, petitioners esides, Rs.18,000/- as compounding charges alleging that respondent No.1 had tampered with the meter and espondent No.1 claims that the o absence and was not properly packed quipment Laboratory (M.E. Lab) in and she was never associated with the inspection. She deposited the t a letter dated 03.11.2014 pointing out that the demand notice had been issued in violation of the electricity but no response was received. She filed an application ervices Authorities Act, 1987, (for short and when the parties could not reach at a award, Annexure P-5, demand was set aside and re directed to refund the deposited amount along with deposit. going into the merits of the dispute, counsel for the argument that PLA (PUS) did not have the of the 1987 Act to determine a dispute counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to the to contend that it is not a case of theft of has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. ounsel for the parties and examined documents relied upon by counsel for the parties as well as considered the besides examining the paper book. 2014, petitioners compounding and espondent No.1 claims that the old packed. It her inspection. She deposited the 2014 pointing out that the demand notice had been issued in violation of the electricity e filed an application , (for short and when the parties could not reach at a 5, demand was set aside and re directed to refund the deposited amount along with going into the merits of the dispute, counsel for the did not have the ct to determine a dispute counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to the to contend that it is not a case of theft of the documents relied upon by counsel for the parties as well as considered their Sheetal 2025.08.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-26709 6. 15.10.2014 and it was found that cutting the checking of the met was being controlled by a remote manipulat found to be case of theft of energy 16.10.2014 of the Electricity assessed under the given an opportunity to get the offence compounded charges under documents establishes that it was respondent appreciating these vital documents 7. jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding theft of electricity. This question has been answered by Haryana LokAdatlat (P 634 and it has been observed as under 26709 of 2016 -3- Electricity meter of respondent No.1 was inspected on 2014 and it was found that ME seals cutting the clamps of ME seals, they were found to be re checking of the meter revealed that the supply of potential was being controlled by a remote control device and consumption was being ted. Inspection report, Annexure P found to be case of theft of energy. A 2014, Annexure P-4, was served on the consumer under lectricity Act, 2003 and an FIR was lodged assessed under the Electricity Supply Regulations and respondent No.1 was given an opportunity to get the offence compounded charges under Section 152 of the Electricity Act documents establishes that it was prima facie respondent No.1. Findings to the contrary recorded by PLA appreciating these vital documents, cannot be sustained. Now the question arises as to whether PLA jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding theft of electricity. This question has been answered by a Coordinate Bench Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Adatlat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon and it has been observed as under: “9. Chapter 6 Conciliation and Settlement for which Permanent Lok Adalats have been established under Section 22B (1) of 1987 Act. Permanent Lok Adalat takes cognizance of the cases under Section 22C of 1987 Act if the offence is - respondent No.1 was inspected on ME seals were tampered with. A , they were found to be re-fixed. An internal r revealed that the supply of potential coil of the met control device and consumption was being Annexure P-3, was prepared and it was A bill-cum-assessment order dated was served on the consumer under Section 135 n FIR was lodged. Amount payable was egulations and respondent No.1 was given an opportunity to get the offence compounded by depositing the Electricity Act, 2003. An analysis of these prima facie case of theft of electricity by indings to the contrary recorded by PLA(PUS), without cannot be sustained. Now the question arises as to whether PLA(PUS) has the jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding theft of electricity. This question a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dakshin and another Versus Permanent Gurgaon and another 2016 (2) PLR Chapter 6-A deals with Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement for which Permanent Lok Adalats have been established under Section 22B (1) of 1987 Act. Permanent Lok Adalat takes cognizance of the cases under Section 22C of 1987 Act if the offence is respondent No.1 was inspected on fter n internal of the meter control device and consumption was being it was assessment order dated ection 135 was egulations and respondent No.1 was depositing the analysis of these case of theft of electricity by without has the jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding theft of electricity. This question Dakshin ermanent PLR litigation Conciliation and Settlement for which Permanent Lok Adalats have been established under Section 22B (1) of 1987 Act. Permanent Lok Adalat takes cognizance of the cases under Section 22C of 1987 Act if the offence is Sheetal 2025.08.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-26709 26709 of 2016 -4- compoundable and has the pecuniary jurisdiction. Procedure is provided under clauses (2) to (7) 22C of 1987 Act for conciliation whereas clause (8) of Section 22C of 1987 Act empowers the Lok Adalat to adjudicate on facts if the dispute does not r offence. 10.The Electricity Act, 2003 repealed the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which envisaged growth of the electricity industry in India and created the legal framework for laying down of wires and other works relating to the supply of (Supply) Act, 1948 mandated creation of a State Electricity Board and Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, was enacted to determine the electricity tariffs etc. Part XII of 2003 Act deals with Investigation and Enforcement in which Section 126 deals with the unauthorized use of electricity and the assessment of the charges. It provides that where there is unauthorized use of electricity, provisional assessment has to be made to the best of the judgment of the Authority c provisional order is served upon the person concerned, who would have a right to file objections, if any, and shall have to be afforded opportunity before passing final order of assessment but if any person is aggrieved of the final assessment order passed under Section 126 of 2003 Act, he may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority as prescribed. Chapter 14 of 2003 Act deals with the offences and penalties. Section 135 of 2003 Act deals with the theft of electricity, which may be suspected established. In the case of suspected theft of electricity, inquiry is conducted but in the case of established theft, the assessment is made as per Section 154 (5) of 2003 Act and offer is given to the person concerned for - mpoundable and has the pecuniary jurisdiction. Procedure is provided under clauses (2) to (7) of Section 22C of 1987 Act for conciliation whereas clause (8) of Section 22C of 1987 Act empowers the Lok Adalat to adjudicate on facts if the dispute does not relate to any The Electricity Act, 2003 repealed the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which envisaged growth of the electricity industry in India and created the legal framework for laying down of wires and other works relating to the supply of electricity. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 mandated creation of a State Electricity Board and Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, was enacted to determine the electricity tariffs etc. Part XII of 2003 Act deals with Investigation and ent in which Section 126 deals with the unauthorized use of electricity and the assessment of the charges. It provides that where there is unauthorized use of electricity, provisional assessment has to be made to the best of the judgment of the Authority concerned and provisional order is served upon the person concerned, who would have a right to file objections, if any, and shall have to be afforded opportunity before passing final order of assessment but if any person is aggrieved of the order passed under Section 126 of 2003 Act, he may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority as prescribed. Chapter 14 of 2003 Act deals with the offences and penalties. Section 135 of 2003 Act deals with the theft of electricity, which may be suspected established. In the case of suspected theft of electricity, inquiry is conducted but in the case of established theft, the assessment is made as per Section 154 (5) of 2003 Act and offer is given to the person concerned for mpoundable and has the pecuniary jurisdiction. of Section 22C of 1987 Act for conciliation whereas clause (8) of Section 22C of 1987 Act empowers the Lok Adalat to elate to any The Electricity Act, 2003 repealed the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which envisaged growth of the electricity industry in India and created the legal framework for laying down of wires and other works electricity. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 mandated creation of a State Electricity Board and Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, was enacted to determine the electricity tariffs etc. Part XII of 2003 Act deals with Investigation and ent in which Section 126 deals with the unauthorized use of electricity and the assessment of the charges. It provides that where there is unauthorized use of electricity, provisional assessment has to be made to oncerned and provisional order is served upon the person concerned, who would have a right to file objections, if any, and shall have to be afforded opportunity before passing final order of assessment but if any person is aggrieved of the order passed under Section 126 of 2003 Act, he may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority as prescribed. Chapter 14 of 2003 Act deals with the offences and penalties. Section 135 of 2003 Act deals with the theft of electricity, which may be suspected or established. In the case of suspected theft of electricity, inquiry is conducted but in the case of established theft, the assessment is made as per Section 154 (5) of 2003 Act and offer is given to the person concerned for Sheetal 2025.08.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-26709 8. respondent No.1 has committed theft of electricity by tampering with the seals of the circumstances is to approach the Electricity into the realm of controversy 9. impugned Moga, is her under the No.1 decides to 03.12.2014 i.e. Act, till to 13.08.2025 sheetal Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 26709 of 2016 -5- compounding of offence under The jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of 2003 Act in respect of proceedings initiated under Section 126 and jurisdiction has been conferred upon Special Court, constituted under Section 153 (3) of 2003 Act to try the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 135 to 140 and 150 of 2003 Act. It is evident from the factual position respondent No.1 has committed theft of electricity by tampering with the seals of the electric meter. The remedy available circumstances is to approach the special lectricity Act, 2003 and PLA(PUS) does not have the jurisdiction to enter into the realm of controversy. For the reasons assigned impugned award dated 02.06.2016, Annexure P set aside. Respondent No.1 is relegated to the remedy available to her under the Electricity Act, 2003. It is clarified that decides to invoke the remedy available to her .12.2014 i.e. the date of presentation of the application under the till today, shall be excluded for the purposes of 13.08.2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No - compounding of offence under Section 152 of 2003 Act. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of 2003 Act in respect of proceedings initiated under Section 126 and jurisdiction has been conferred upon Special Court, constituted under Section 153 (3) of 2003 try the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 135 to 140 and 150 of 2003 Act.” It is evident from the factual position noticed above that respondent No.1 has committed theft of electricity by tampering with the he remedy available to respondent No.1 in such pecial Court constituted under the does not have the jurisdiction to enter above, writ petition is allowed nnexure P-5, passed by PLA(PU espondent No.1 is relegated to the remedy available to is clarified that, in case, respondent the remedy available to her, period spent from the date of presentation of the application under the 1987 shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Section 152 of 2003 Act. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 145 of 2003 Act in respect of proceedings initiated under Section 126 and jurisdiction has been conferred upon Special Court, constituted under Section 153 (3) of 2003 try the offence alleged to have been committed noticed above that respondent No.1 has committed theft of electricity by tampering with the in such ourt constituted under the does not have the jurisdiction to enter above, writ petition is allowed, US), espondent No.1 is relegated to the remedy available to respondent period spent from 1987 Sheetal 2025.08.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh