Civil liability under Section 126 of Electricity Act operates independently of criminal proceedings for theft.

The Appellants (Electricity Department) issued a final assessment order dated 20.11.2024 against the Respondent, raising a demand of Rs. 6,76,809/-.

The assessment was later modified to Rs. 4,71,866/- on 30.01.2025.

The Respondent challenged the original assessment via Writ Petition No. 5279/2025, and the Writ Court quashed the assessment order on 17.04.2025, primarily relying on Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the Special Court’s power to determine civil liability.

The Appellants filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, seeking to set aside the Single Judge's order.

1. Whether Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is dependent upon the outcome of a criminal trial and assessment of civil liability under Section 154, or if it constitutes an independent provision for recovery.

2. Whether the Single Judge erred in quashing the assessment order without considering the statutory framework of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act.

Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers authorities to issue provisional and final assessment orders for unauthorized use of electricity.

Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides a statutory appeal mechanism against assessments made under Section 126.

Section 135 (theft of electricity) and Section 154 (procedure and power of Special Court) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which establish the Special Court’s jurisdiction to determine civil liability during criminal prosecution.

The High Court observed that the Writ Court focused exclusively on Section 154, failing to consider whether the Electricity Department could recover civil liability under Section 126 without initiating a criminal prosecution under Section 135.

The Division Bench noted that during arguments, the Appellants' counsel failed to properly address or rely on Section 126, instead insisting that the proceedings were taken under Section 135, which contains no provisions for assessment or appeal.

The court criticized the Appellants for failing to file a return before the Single Judge and for neglecting to raise necessary legal grounds or documents in the memo of appeal, concluding there was a "deliberate suppression" or lack of preparation.

The High Court dismissed the petition under the peculiar facts and circumstances, leaving the order of the Single Judge undisturbed.