1 CGHC010302572022 2026:CGHC:36108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4172 of 2022 1 - Smt. Ramla Netam W/o R.C. Netam Aged About 46 Years R/o Bimleshwari Colony, Borsi, Durg, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Executive Engineer (City Division), Durg District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ajay Thakre, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondent for kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication letter dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent to be install electricity connection in the residential house of the petitioner as early as possible. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(C) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. The petitioner was having an electricity connection in her residential premises for domestic use bearing Service No. 94.36.017242/1002089864. The electricity meter installed at the premises was not functioning properly AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.18 18:37:58 +0530 2 and was not displaying the actual consumption of electricity. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 29.08.2016 before the respondent authorities, requesting inspection of the meter and its replacement. Instead of attending to the petitioner's complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the electricity meter, the respondent authorities constituted an inspection team, which inspected the petitioner's premises on 15.09.2016. During the inspection, it was allegedly found that the meter had been tampered with and burnt. The said meter was seized by the inspection team after preparation of the inspection report and was thereafter sent for laboratory examination. On the basis of the alleged laboratory report, wherein it was stated that interference with the internal circuit of the meter was found, the respondent authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. A criminal complaint was accordingly filed before the competent Special Court constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003. On 21.10.2016, the respondent authorities disconnected the petitioner's electricity connection. The petitioner thereafter faced trial in the aforesaid criminal proceedings for the allegation of theft of electricity. After due trial, the learned Special Court under the Electricity Act, 2003 was pleased to acquit the petitioner from the charge of theft of electricity. However, while acquitting the petitioner from the criminal charge, the learned Special Court determined a civil liability of Rs. 8,01,380/-, allegedly towards excess consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned load. After her acquittal from the criminal charge, the petitioner submitted an application dated 19.02.2018 before the respondent authorities requesting restoration/grant of electricity connection at her residential premises. 3 However, no action was taken by the respondent authorities on the said application. The petitioner was thereafter constrained to submit a reminder/application dated 15.03.2018, again requesting the respondent authorities to restore/grant the electricity connection. Despite the said request, the respondent authorities neither restored the electricity connection nor communicated any decision to the petitioner. Having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, by filing Consumer Complaint Case No. CC 17/365, along with an application seeking interim relief for restoration of the electricity connection. The aforesaid consumer complaint was, however, dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Durg, as being not maintainable, vide order dated 17.09.2018. Thereafter, as a further effort to secure electricity connection for her residential premises, the petitioner submitted another application dated 21.12.2020 before the respondent authorities. In the said application, the petitioner specifically brought to the notice of the respondents that she had already been acquitted by the learned Special Court from the criminal charge of theft of electricity and requested that the electricity connection be granted/restored. Instead of considering the petitioner's request in accordance with law, the respondent authorities rejected the same by the impugned communication dated 07.01.2021. The sole reason assigned for refusing to grant electricity connection was that, although the petitioner had been acquitted from the criminal charge, a civil liability had been determined against her by the learned Special Court in respect of alleged excess consumption of electricity and the respondents had been given liberty to recover the said amount in accordance with law. Criminal 4 charge of theft of electricity having culminated in her acquittal, the continued denial of electricity connection to her residential premises on the basis of the alleged civil liability is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. The respondents, if otherwise entitled to recover any amount determined as civil liability, may take recourse to the remedies available to them in law; however, the same cannot, without authority of law, be made a ground for indefinitely denying the petitioner an electricity connection for her residential premises. Aggrieved by the determination of civil liability despite her acquittal from the charge of theft of electricity, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 282/2021 before this Hon'ble Court, challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the learned Special Court in determining the aforesaid civil liability after acquitting the petitioner from the criminal charge. The petitioner has sought appropriate relief against the said part of the judgment in the pending criminal revision. This Court was pleased to admit the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 282/2021, and the matter was thereafter fixed for final hearing. Since the criminal revision is likely to take some further time for its final adjudication, the petitioner cannot be left without electricity in her residential premises for an indefinite period, particularly when she has already been acquitted of the allegation of theft of electricity. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submits that CRR No.282 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 23.01.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Durg in Special Criminal Case No.377 of 2016, whereby though the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, however, liberty was reserved in favour of the electricity department to recover the charges of 13,446 watt 5 electricity consumed by the petitioner. He submits that the CRR No.282 of 2021 was dismissed by this Court on 04.08.2023 and in paragraph No.14 following has been observed:- “14. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, keeping in view the provisions of Section 154 of the Electricity Act and other relevant provisions of the said Act, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and reserving liberty with the electricity department/CSPDCL to recover the charges of 13,446 watt electricity consumed by the accused in accordance with law. 4. Counsel for the respondent submits that against the said order passed in CRR No.282 of 2021, petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11912/2023, which was also dismissed by order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby affirming the order dated 04.08.2023. As such, no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears that the entire basis of the present writ petition was that the petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the determination of civil liability by the learned Special Court was under challenge before this Court in CRR No.282 of 2021. The petitioner had, therefore, sought restoration/grant of electricity connection mainly on the ground that the criminal proceedings had culminated in her acquittal. 6 6. However, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner no longer survives for consideration. The judgment dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Durg in Special Criminal Case No.377 of 2016 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CRR No.282 of 2021. The said revision was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2023, wherein this Court, after considering the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the material available on record, upheld the judgment of the learned trial Court and specifically observed that there was no illegality or perversity in acquitting the petitioner of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, while reserving liberty in favour of the electricity department/CSPDCL to recover the charges relating to 13,446 watts of electricity consumed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11912/2023 against the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2023, and the said petition was also dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2024. Consequently, the order passed by this Court in CRR No.282 of 2021 has attained finality. Thus, the petitioner can no longer contend that the question regarding the civil liability determined against her is pending adjudication or that the same is liable to be ignored merely on account of her acquittal from the criminal charge. 8. In the circumstances, the respondents cannot be faulted in relying upon the subsisting liability determined in favour of the electricity department while considering the petitioner's request for restoration/grant of electricity connection. The mere acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charge 7 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act does not, in view of the orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, obliterate the liability which has been upheld as recoverable in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, particularly the dismissal of CRR No.282 of 2021 by this Court and the dismissal of SLP (Crl.) No.11912/2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned communication dated 07.01.2021. The principal ground on which the petitioner seeks interference with the said communication is no longer available to her. 10.Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 11.It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking any remedy that may otherwise be available to her in law in respect of the electricity connection or for settlement/recovery of the outstanding liability, subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash