Civil liability challenges in electricity-theft cases must be pursued before the pending criminal Special Court.

An inspection of the respondent-consumer’s premises on 25 August 2011 allegedly revealed tampering with the electricity meter, including interference with its seals, ultrasonic strips, and metering mechanism. An FIR was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

A provisional assessment of ₹50,10,969 was made and deposited under protest to avoid disconnection, followed by a final assessment of ₹40,96,070 dated 28 September 2011.

The consumer challenged the assessment under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. During the appellate proceedings, FPPCA charges of ₹4,26,676 were added. By order dated 10 June 2016, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and directed that reassessment be undertaken only for the period from 2 August 2011 to 25 August 2011, rather than for the period of 365 days.

The distribution company challenged that appellate order before the High Court, contending that the assessment period had been unlawfully restricted and that the matter ought to have been remitted for fresh assessment.

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the distribution company’s challenge to the appellate assessment order, or direct the parties to approach the Special Court constituted under Section 154 of the Electricity Act for determination of civil liability arising from alleged theft of electricity?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the appellate order dated 10 June 2016 before the Special Court where the criminal proceeding was pending?

The Court applied Sections 154(5) and 154(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, under which the Special Court dealing with an offence of theft of electricity is empowered to determine the civil liability payable by the consumer or other person concerned.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Mosmat Swaran @ Swaran Man Ra v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 229, holding that questions concerning civil liability for theft should be placed before the Special Court.

It also followed the earlier order in The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 19868 of 2013, directing the distribution company to challenge the relevant assessment-related order before the Special Court where the criminal case was pending.

The Court treated the alleged meter tampering and the pending prosecution under Section 135 as matters falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the Special Court.

Following Mosmat Swaran and the earlier South Bihar Power Distribution Company decision, it held that the dispute regarding the assessment and the corresponding civil liability should be considered by the Special Court rather than being resolved in the writ petition.

Consequently, the Court did not examine whether the Appellate Authority had correctly applied Section 126(5), whether the 365-day assessment period was justified, or whether remand to the Assessing Officer was necessary.

Instead, it adopted the previously established procedural course and required the petitioner to pursue its challenge before the competent Special Court.

The petitioner-distribution company was directed to file a separate petition before the Special Court where the criminal proceeding was pending, challenging the appellate order dated 10 June 2016, within 30 days.

The Special Court was directed to decide the challenge in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.