1 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. APHC010062112019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 63/2020 Between: 1. THE EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LIMITED, REP. BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION, KAKINADA RURAL. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MEDISETTY VISHNU CHAKRESWARA RAO, S/o Narayana Murthy, Consumer of SC. No. 1451460207000553 of Kondagodu, Kadapa Mandal. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 63/2020 J U D G M E N T: 1. The appellant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA), aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in O.S.SR.No.768 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court under the Indian Electricity Act 2003 -cum- I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. 2. Brief facts of the case are that - the respondent is a consumer of electricity under Service connection No.1451460207000553 falling under „Category-LT3(A)(I) Industrial Normal of Kongodu Village. On 17.03.2017, an inspection was conducted by A.E./D.P.E.-1/RJY in respect of the aforesaid service connection of the respondent. During the inspection, the inspecting officer noticed that connected load of 29840 watts by direct tapping and duly bypassing the energy meter and preventing the energy consumed from being recorded in the meter. Thus, the inspecting officer prima facie concluded that the respondent had dishonestly indulged in theft of energy by meddling with the meter and preventing the recording of the consumption of electricity utilized by him. The inspecting officer prepared inspection notes by recording his findings and the particulars of the total connected load during the course of inspection and served a copy of the said inspection notes on the representative of the respondent. 3 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. 3. Thereupon, the inspecting officer prepared an inspection report dated 17.03.2017 and made an assessment of the loss sustained by APEPDC Limited, including supervision charges and reconnection charges, in a sum of Rs.10,93,914/-. The same was communicated to the applicant for taking further action for recovery of the value of the energy pilfered. By virtue of the powers vested in him under the General Terms and Conditions of supply, he demanded payment of Rs.10,93,739/- towards the value of the energy pilfered under a provisional assessment notice dated 19.03.2016, providing an option to the respondent to pay 50% of the assessed amount plus reconnection charges and supervision charges if the respondent was desirous of restoration of supply, and to pay balance 50% amount in installments pending final determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act read with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Further, a criminal case was registered by the APTS Police against the respondent on the complaint lodged by the inspecting officer for the offence of theft of energy by the respondent punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 4. It is further stated that the respondent, even without making payment of 50% of the provisional assessment amount, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.29435 of 2016 questioning the validity of the provisional assessment notice dated 19.03.2016 and seeking a direction not to disconnect the service connection pending disposal of the writ petition. This Court, by an order dated 4 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. 31.08.2016, while disposing of the writ petition, directed restoration of power supply subject to the condition of payment of 50% of the amount towards the value of the energy pilfered and further directed the petitioner to refer the dispute relating to final liability under Section 154(5) of the Act to the competent Court. However, the Special Court raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of suit/application under Section 154(5) of A.P Electricity Act for determination of civil liability. 5. It is stated that the appellant re-submitted the suit/application with an endorsement stating that the explanation to sub-Section (6) of Section 154 of the Act defines “civil liability” as loss of damage incurred by the Electricity Board due to the commission of an offence referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act. As per the definition of civil liability under the explanation to Section 154(6) of the Act, the term „civil liability‟ under Section 154(5) refers to civil liability arising due to the commission of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Therefore, the Special Court is invested with the power to determine the civil liability against a consumer like the respondent herein who has indulged in theft of energy. 6. After careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below returned the application on the ground that only a crime was registered and no charge sheet or report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was filed and, therefore, when the matter had not reached the stage of disposal of the 5 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. criminal case, the question of determination of civil liability does not arise. Thus, the Electricity Application O.S., filed by the appellant was unsustainable. 7. Heard V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished a copy of the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.514 of 2019, wherein, under similar circumstances, the application submitted by the appellant was dismissed on similar grounds. In the said case, this Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the criminal case and the civil liability stand on independent footing and the same cannot be interlinked with each other, and that the civil liability is to be determined independently by the Special Court under Sections 153 and 154 of the Indian Electricity Act. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the Order dated 26.09.2018, passed in O.S.SR.No.1355 of 2018, on the file of Special Court under Indian Electricity Act, 2003-Cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajamahendravaram, and remanded the matter back to the Court below for fresh consideration. Further, the Court below is directed to complete the trial and conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity to the appellant, as expeditiously as possible, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.” 6 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. 9. In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is also allowed in terms of the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.514 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order in C.M.A.No.514 of 2019 dated 19.12.2023, to this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 12.03.2026 KS 7 CMA NO. 63 OF 2020 VS,J. 319 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 63 / 2020 DATED 12.03.2026 KS