High Court
Legal Reasoning
124 W.P.838.2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.24 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 838 OF 2025Bilal Yousuf ShaikhAge : 38 yrs. Occu. Business andEditor of Sayankal Dainik Vishvanayak,Khas Bagh, Khaja Nagar, Devi Road,Beed, Dist. Beed.… PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the SecretaryEnergy Department, Maharashtra StateMantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Managing DirectorM.S.E.D.C.L (Govt. of Maharashtra undertaking) Office of the Chief Investigation Officer Estella Batteries Extension, Plot No. 1Dharavi Road, Matunga, Mumbai-19.3.The Joint Managing DirectorMSEDCL Regional Office Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Near Mill Corner, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.4.The Superintending EngineerMSEDCL Circle Office ‘Vidyut Bhavan’, Jalna Road Beed, Dist. Beed.5.The Executive EngineerMSEDCL Divisional Office Jalna Road, Vidyut Bhavan Beed, Dist. Beed.
Legal Reasoning
224 W.P.838.2025.odt6.The Superintendent of PoliceBeed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.7.The Police InspectorPeth Beed Police Station, Beed.… Respondents...Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.Smt. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondents / State. ...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :21st July, 2025. Per Court:.Present writ petition has been filed for giving directions tothe respondents to register an offence against the persons named inthe enquiry report of three member committee appointed at MSEDCL,Beed, Branch No.1 and the representation / complaint by the petitioneron 18th January, 2024. 2The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is a citizen, who had come across the incidence in respect offeeder line and poles those have been unauthorizedly removed andsold by / under the instructions of the Branch Engineer Mr. Kasbe. Theenquiry report also concludes that since there was no approval for theelectricity line to be installed from Millat Nagar onwards, Mr. Kasbe hadthen directed the contractor Jai Hind Empire to take out the line and 324 W.P.838.2025.odtthe poles. The said articles were not then deposited with the MSEDCLstore. Thus, according to the petitioner there is a theft ascontemplated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. In view ofSection 151 of the said Act, which bars the Court from takingcognizance of an offence punishable under the said Act, except upon acomplaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government orAppropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or aChief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or thegenerating company, as the case may be, the petitioner cannot filesuch complaint / FIR with the police and therefore, the petitioner hadno option but to seek the Writ of Mandamus. He relies on the decisionof Vishal Agrawal and Anr. Vs. Chhattisgarh State ElectricityBoard and Anr., reported in, 2014 AIR (SC) 1539, wherein it is statedthat though the police can investigate, yet Section 151 of said Actmakes a provision that the FIR should be by a specific person. 3Heard the learned APP. 4At the outset, we would like to say that the petitioner in hisprivate capacity seeks direction against the officers of the MSEDCLcompany to take action against the erring officers, on the basis of theenquiry report. In this respect, we could see that there would bepossibility of departmental action as per the procedure and the service 424 W.P.838.2025.odtconditions or on the criminal side. But when the petitioner is insistingupon the criminal action to be taken, then we are guided by thedecisions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,2008 (2) SCC 409, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. HemantYashwant Dhage and others, 2016(6) SCC 227 and M.Subramaniam and others Vs. S. Janaki, 2020(16) SCC 728,wherein it has been laid down and reiterated that under theconstitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India andSection 482 of Cr.P.C., such directions for registration of the FIRcannot be given. What kind of action should be taken by an employer,as the employer who may be Government or Semi-Governmentorganization, cannot be controlled by this Court. It would then be freefor the petitioner to approach the police authority with the complaint.He should try to lodge the FIR as contemplated under Section 154 ofthe Cr.P.C., as has been laid down in Priyanka Srivastava andAnother Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 AIR SC 1758. Further,in the same decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has stated that ifthe police inspector of a police station fails to record the FIR, then suchperson may approach the higher authority and in view of PriyankaSrivastava (supra) as well as Sakiri Vasu (supra) etc., if the policeauthorities are not acting, then such person can approach theMagistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 524 W.P.838.2025.odt5Now, in this case, the petitioner is apprehending thatSection 151 Amendment in the Electricity Act, 2003, would be a hurdlefor him and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies onVishal Agrawal and Anr. (supra). Perusal of the said decision wouldshow that a pure question of law that arose for consideration beforethe Honorable Supreme Court was; whether the amendment in Section151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers the Court to takecognizance of an offence upon a report made by the police underSection 173 of Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the pending complaintsfiled before the aforesaid amendment and for this point, it wasobserved by the Honorable Supreme Court that “ To answer thisquestion, scope and interpretation of Section 151, as it stood prior tothe amendment, also needs to be considered.” Thereafter, taking intoconsideration the provision as it was prior to the amendment and afterthe amendment as well as taking into consideration other Sectionsfrom the Electricity Act, it was then held that the police shall takecognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint inwriting to the police by the Appropriate Government or the AppropriateCommission or any of their officer authorized by them in this regard ora Chief Electrical Inspector etc. as contemplated under Section 151 ofthe said Act and then the police shall investigate the complaint inaccordance with the general law applicable to the investigation of anycomplaint and for the purpose of investigation, the police shall have all 624 W.P.838.2025.odtthe powers as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure.6Now, taking into consideration the question of law, whichwas before the Honorable Supreme Court, it can be seen that it wasrestricted to the offences those were transpiring under the ElectricityAct. Now, taking into consideration the facts in the present case,suffice it to say that the action that can be taken need not be restrictedto the Electricity Act. The offence under the IPC may also get attractedunder same given circumstances and taking into consideration theenquiry report when even the contractor appears to be in the picture.Therefore, according to us, that is the prima-facie opinion that Section151 of the Electricity Act will not be a hurdle for the present petitionerto approach the police, if he desires. Further, the Special Court, whichis established under the Electricity Act, is also having the powers asMagistrate and therefore, taking into consideration the decisions statedabove and the facts, we are of the opinion that the case is not madeout for exercise of the constitutional powers of this Court.7The learned counsel for the petitioner, now, seekswithdrawal of the petition with liberty to take appropriate action ascontemplated under the M. Subramaniam and others Vs. S. Janaki(supra) as the liberty was given in M. Subramaniam and others Vs.S. Janaki (supra) to the petitioner / complainant therein to approach 724 W.P.838.2025.odtthe appropriate authority as well as the Magistrate under Section156(3) of Cr.P.C. We adopt the same procedure. 8The petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga