Electricity-theft civil liability disputes must be pursued before the Special Court where criminal proceedings are pending.

On 22 July 2011, the petitioner-distribution company inspected the premises of respondent no. 2, Kiran Cold Storage, and allegedly detected extensive tampering with the meter box, meter body, terminal seals and ultrasonic seals.

An inspection report and seizure list were prepared, and an FIR was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

A provisional assessment of approximately ₹48.74 lakh was subsequently reduced to approximately ₹41.92 lakh by the final assessment order dated 9 August 2011.

Respondent no. 2 challenged the assessment under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.

By order dated 21 March 2016, the Appellate Authority did not dispute the occurrence of theft but restricted the assessment period to 14 days—from the last meter reading on 9 July 2011 to the date of inspection on 22 July 2011.

The distribution company challenged that appellate order, contending that later-revealed MRI data indicated that the meter had been tampered with from 16 August 2010 and that routine meter reading could not establish the absence of earlier tampering.

During the writ proceedings, the respondent relied on The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 19868 of 2013, which had directed the distribution company to raise the civil-liability issue before the Special Court where the criminal case was pending, following Mosmat Swaran @ Swaran Man Ra v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 229.

Whether the writ petition challenging the Appellate Authority’s order under Section 127 of the Electricity Act should be adjudicated by the High Court, or whether the question of civil liability arising from alleged theft should be placed before the Special Court constituted under Section 154 of the Act.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the assessment period and the alleged reliance on the last meter reading before the Special Court, particularly in light of the MRI report and other technical material.

The Court applied Sections 127 and 154(5)–(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Section 127 provides the appellate remedy against an assessment order, while Section 154(5)–(6) empowers the Special Court to determine the civil liability payable by a consumer or other person found guilty of theft of electricity.

Relying on Mosmat Swaran @ Swaran Man Ra v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 229, and the coordinate decision in The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., the Court followed the principle that, where the criminal proceeding for theft is pending before the Special Court, the issue of civil liability should also be placed before that court for determination.

Although the petitioner raised substantive challenges to the Appellate Authority’s restriction of the assessment period—including reliance on the MRI report allegedly showing tampering from 16 August 2010—the High Court did not decide the merits of those contentions.

Instead, it applied the principle that the Special Court seized of the theft prosecution is the appropriate forum to determine the consequential civil liability under Section 154.

Since the criminal case was pending before the Special Court, and the issue of assessment was connected with the alleged theft, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue the challenge before that court, consistently with the earlier decision in South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

The petitioner was directed to file a separate petition before the Special Court where the criminal proceeding was pending, challenging the Appellate Authority’s order dated 21 March 2016, within 30 days.

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

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.