02.2026 Dakshin H Vikran Nig hin Haryana Bijli an Nigam & Anr. v. Gurpreet Si reet Singh & Anr.

the defendant from from disconnecting the electrici ectricity connection ection of the plaintiff and from effe effecting recovery of the amount o ount of -. ₹42,287/- [3] The plaintiff is a consumer sumer of electricity supplied by th by the defendant. dant. On 20.09.2014, the officials fficials of the defendant departme artment RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document conducted ucted a checking of the premises of es of the plaintiff and allegedly foun y found RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) 2 that the ele he electricity meter installed at the pre the premises did not tally with the seri he serial number rec er recorded in the official records of rds of the Nigam. Consequently theret thereto, the plaintif laintiff was served with demand no and notices by the defendant allegin alleging commission ission of theft of electricity. [4] The Trial Court, upon apprec appreciation of the pleadings and th and the evidence br nce brought on record, decreed the sui the suit in favour of the plaintiff. [5] Aggrieved by the judgment ment and decree passed by the Tri he Trial Court, the d t, the defendant preferred an appeal be Court. eal before the Lower Appellate Court. [6] The Lower Appellate Court p ourt partly allowed the appeal filed b filed by the defend defendant. While upholding the find e finding of the learned Trial Cou l Court declaring t ring the assessment orders to be il be illegal, null and void, the Low Lower Appellate C llate Court accepted the appeal to th l to the extent of the declaration wi on with d regard the notice of compounding unding, holding the notice o tice of compoundi ounding as well as the checking repor report could not be termed as unlawf nlawful or unjustifi justified. [7] Learned counsel for the appell appellant does not dispute the fact th fact that although th ugh theft of electricity has been allege alleged against the plaintiff consume nsumer, till date nei ate neither any FIR has been registered istered nor any complaint has been file en filed before the re the competent court, as contempla templated under the bare provisions o sions of law. He, ho He, however, submits that the consum onsumer could not have approached th ched the Civil Cour Court, as the jurisdiction to try cas ry cases relating to theft of electrici ectricity under Secti r Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 n 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ves 03 vests exclusively sively with the Special Court constitu onstituted under Section 153 of the sa the said Act. He su He submits that the jurisdiction of on of the Civil Court is barred und d under Section 145 on 145 of the electricity act, 2003. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) 3 [8] The issue w.r.t procedure to b re to be followed in the case of theft an heft and the effect t ffect thereof on the jurisdiction of the of the Civil Court has been elaborate borately explained b ined by this Court in RSA No.1952 o 1952 of 2024 titled as ‘Sub Division visional Officer an er and another vs. Smt. Kamla De la Devi’, decided on 27.10.2025 aft 25 after considering idering the ratio of law laid down by wn by Division Bench of this Court Court in RSA No.4 No.4181 of 2016 titled as ‘Mahe ‘Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Division visional Officers an ers and another’ decided on 14.05.

14.05.2025. This Court concluded a uded as under: “xxx

20. Likewise Chapter VIII has b I has been incorporated in the Punjab Supp Supply Code, 2014. Chapter VIII in II in the Supply Code, 2014 deals wi als with unauthorized use of electricity and t njab. y and theft of electricity in State of Punjab.

21. In view of the discussion h sion held hereinabove and the scheme of t e of the Act of 2003, it is held as under: (i) Once theft of ele f electricity is discovered by the authorities, they are ey are empowered to disconnect the supply of electricity ctricity. Under Section 145 of 2003 Act, no Civil Cou il Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an applica pplication seeking injunction on such act by an officer/au icer/authority empowered under 2003 Act to disconnect th ect the electricity. (ii) Within 24 hours of urs of such disconnection, competent officer is obligated igated to lodge complaint, in writing, relating to commis ommission of theft of electricity in police station having having jurisdiction. (iii) In case, the consum onsumer pays the assessed amount of electricity charges, arges, the electricity will be restored within 48 hours of s rs of such deposit. However, it needs to be noticed here d herein that such assessment and corresponding depo deposit, is without prejudice to the obligation to lodge t odge the complaint in writing. (iv) The Court can take take cognizance of an offence under Section 135 of the A f the Act upon a complaint, in writing, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) 4 made by competent petent officer/authority or upon report of a police officer officer filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. (v) Offences prescribed cribed under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150, are are cognizable and non-bailable offences. (vi) Once the police ta ice takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Se der Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150, the first time o time offender can claim compounding of offence, as presc prescribed under Section 152. If the payment is made, a ade, a person in custody in connection with the offence, h nce, has to be set at liberty and no proceedings be insti e instituted or continued against him in any criminal Cour l Court. (vii) Acceptance of suc f such payment, shall amount to acquittal within the in the meaning of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., 1973. (viii) States may notify otify in the official gazette Special Courts to try offen offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Se and Section 150 with the object of providing speedy tr edy trial. In terms of Section 153 Constitution of Spec f Special Courts under the 2003 Act, is for purpose of se of trying offence referred to in Sections 5 135 140 and Section

150. Determination of civ of civil liability being incidental and dependant upon c pon criminal liability of offender, Special Court has n has no power to grant injunction on disconnection of sup of supply of electricity under Section 135 of the Act or jur t or jurisdiction to enterain such plea. (ix) Any offence punish punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150, is t 50, is triable only by the Special Court having jurisdiction o ction over the area where the offence mitted. has been committed. (x) The offence has to as to be tried by Special Court as a summary trial in a l in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Co der Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (xi) The Special Court Court has to determine the Civil liability against the st the consumer or a person in terms of money qua theft theft of energy. The same shall not RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) 5 be less than an amo n amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate, appl , applicable for a period of twelve months preceding th ding the date of detection of theft or the exact period of th od of theft, if determined, whichever is less. (xii) The amount of the f the civil liability, so determined, is to be enforced like a like a Civil Court decree. (xiii) The civil liability d ility determined by the Special Court needs to be adjust adjusted/set off against the amount y deposited by consumer subsequent case. registration of case.

22. In view of above, this Cour s Court finds that the Division Bench having relied upon powers conferr onferred by Section 154 to hold that the jurisdiction of Civil Court, is urt, is barred in the case of theft of energy, the ratio can be relied up ied upon by the supplier only in the cases wherein compliance has be has been made to the provisions of Section 135. Which means that o that only when a complaint has been lodged by the competent officer/au cer/authority regarding theft of energy and the Special Court has taken cog en cognizance of the offence pursuant to filing of such complaint or filing r filing of police report as per Section 151 of 2003 Act, the jurisdiction ca tion can be said to be barred invoking Section 154 of the Act of 2003.

23. In the absence of there bein e being any complaint filed before the Special Court or FIR registered stered by the police authorities, the allegations of theft of energy, cann , cannot assume the status of offence. In all those cases, where there is n re is no FIR registered by the police authorities and/or complaint filed t filed by the competent authorities before the Special Courts, the cons consumer is well within his right to approach the Civil Court allegi alleging violation of the law and procedure prescribed therein. Relia . Reliance can be placed upon ratio of law laid down by Five Judges Benc s Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai etc. vs. State ate of M.P. and anr, 1969 AIR (Supreme Court) 78 wherein th ein the Supreme Court observed as under: “32. xxxxx. The result of this inq in this Court may be stated as foll this inquiry into the diverse views expressed as follows :- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) 6 (1) Where the statute atute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the ci the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would nor d normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclu t exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act h Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has fundamental principles l has not acted in conformity with the ciples of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an e is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination ation of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy uacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relev jurisdiction of the civil relevant but is not decisive to sustain the e civil court. Where there is no expr o express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the schem scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes ne es necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special pecial right or a liability and provides for the determination of the rig the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tri he tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally asso prescribed by the said sta y associated with actions in civil courts are said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the pro the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought ought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Co revision or reference from gh Court cannot go into that question on a ce from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision i ision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of a ty of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certio certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is suit. t is not a compulsory remedy to replace a (5) Where the particular ticular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in exce collected a suit lies. n excess of constitutional limits or illegally (6) Questions of the cor he correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are f y are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie ot lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or al or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either must be examined becau either case the scheme of the particular Act because it is a relevant enquiry. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) (7) An exclusion of the of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred u apply.” rred unless the conditions above set down

24. It also needs to be noticed h as contemplated under 3rd proviso ticed herein that the ‘assessed amount’ roviso appended to Section 135(1A) is not relatable to assessment provide rovided under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The same rather refers to fers to the amount assessed as per procedure prescribed by State C tate Commissions in the Electricity Supply Code under Section 50 of 50 of the 2003 Act pursuant to the Electricity (Removal of Diffic Difficulties) Order, 2005, dated

08.06.2005.

25. Applying the aforesaid para id parameters to the present case, this Court finds that it is case where the ere there is neither any FIR registered qua offence punishable under Se der Section 135 nor any complaint preferred before the Special Court Court notified under Section 153, the jurisdiction of Civil Court, cannot cannot be held to be barred invoking Section 154 of 2003 Act. xxx” [9] In view of above, this Court f ourt finds that police authorities or th s or the Court of th t of the Competent Jurisdiction havi n having not taken cognizance of th of the allegations ations levelled by the defendant, offen t, offence of theft cannot be claimed imed to have been been committed by the plaintiff. Thu f. Thus, the issue of the jurisdiction o ction of the Civil Co ivil Court is answered against the defe e defendant/appellant. [10] It is held that the bar under S nder Section 145 of the 2003 Act, doe ct, does not operate perate in the facts and circumstances o nces of the present case. argued. No other point has been argued Finding no merit in the present resent appeal, the same is ordered to b ed to be [11] [12] dismissed issed. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 RSA-439-2025 2025 (O&M) [13] Pending application, if any, sh ny, shall also stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE .2026 03.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.11 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document