C.W.P. No.3496 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3496 of 2010 Date of Decision.25.07.2011 Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Ruldhu Ram, resident of 12, Model Town Patran District Patiala .....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala through its Secretary the Mall, Patiala and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Electricity Board would be competent to levy a final assessment on alleged theft of energy and for drawing more than the sanctioned load. The impugned order was passed on 25.03.2008 that sets out the above two grounds and then brings that an amount of Rs.1.52,179/- shall be deposited as fine. The order also says that the unsanctioned load be reduced and the testing report of the approved contractor should be submitted within 7 days and should initiate appropriate proceedings before the Board and increase of load (sic). There could not have been a direction for submission of report on the increased load and also at the same time a direction for deposit of fine, which pre-judges the issue that there is an unauthorized user of a higher C.W.P. No.3496 of 2010 -2- load and that there has been theft of energy. While the Electricity Board will be fully competent to set forth any theft of energy and also take action for unauthorized load, they have not the power to levy a fine without following the procedure, which the provisions under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant rules provide for. Rule 36 of the Punjab Electricity Rules of the 2007 sets out the procedure that includes, inter alia:- “36. Unauthorized use of electricity xxx xxx xxx xx (c) If on inspection of the premises/area and/or scrutiny of the records, the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that the person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he will prepare an inspection report inter alia indicating connected load, condition of seals and meter and also giving details of evidence substantiating the unauthorized use. The Assessing Officer will wherever possible photograph/videograph the means of such unauthorized use. xxx xxx xxx xxx Clause (g) of Section 36 provides as follows:- “(g) The provisional assessment order will be issued within forty eight hours of inspection and served upon the consumer/person in such a manner as may be prescribed by the State Government. 2. A final assessment is to be issued under Rule 36.2 only after a consumer states his objection and prefers his objection within 7 days C.W.P. No.3496 of 2010 -3- from the when the order is issued against him. The Assessing Authority shall then scrutinize the case and could either drop the proceedings or initiate further action against the defaulter. On final assessment, the consumer still has a right of appeal under Section 36.3. The appeal will become a meaningful remedy only if the assessment is made after hearing the objections and after allowing the consumer to join issues on the imputations made against him. The Electricity Board could not have sought to realize the alleged dues without calling the petitioner to state his objection. 3. Learned counsel states that the petitioner had actually approached to the Permanent Lok Adalat for similar remedy and only when it was dismissed, the petitioner has filed this case. It is also contended on behalf of the Board that the only remedy is to file an appeal which remedy has also been availed by the petitioner. 4. As far as the contention that the petitioner has not filed any objection to the final assessment, I would reject such a contention, for, the final assessment itself has been passed without following the procedure mandated through Rule 36. Approach to the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot also bar the petitioner from seeking remedy before this Court since the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction to entertain a case where there is an offence alleged against a party and the Permanent Lok Adalat itself does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate all the matters where there arises an adjudication relating to commission of an offence. The fact that the petitioner was preferring an appeal against the final assessment also will not be a bar, for, it is represented that the power to the Appellate Authority has been C.W.P. No.3496 of 2010 -4- withdrawn and there is no effective adjudicatory mechanism available to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance. 5. The impugned order, under the circumstances, is quashed in so far as it cast a liability to make payment of fine in the manner assessed. Even as regards the commission of theft, there is a procedure under Section 37.2, which requires authorized officer to give the consumer an opportunity of being heard and determine within 7 days whether or not there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a case of theft of electricity is prima facie established. A right of hearing to any imputation against petitioner cannot be denied under any circumstances and the authority shall, therefore, take appropriate action even in the consequence of alleged theft of electricity in the manner provided under the laws. 6. The petitioner states that temporary connection has been given on payment of 50% of the amount, which was demanded. The temporary connection will not be withdrawn till an adjudication is taken after affording to the petitioner the opportunity as aforesaid. 7. The writ petition is allowed and directions are given for compliance as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 25, 2011 Pankaj*