K.DOMINIC Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as against the impugned assessment order passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer in Letter No.2 / Executive Engineer / Distribution / N / North / Tuticorin / Ko.Theft of Energy A.963/10, dtd. 13/7/2010, in and by which, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.26,28, 891.00 for the theft of 2,72,348 units of electricity.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a factory named as "CIBIC ICE" at Tuticorin. On 22/6/2010 there was an inspection by anti-power theft squad wing in the petitioner's factory of Tirunelveli region, however, no infirmity in the metre was found by the said wing. Again on 13/7/2012, there was another inspection by the same squad and they recorded that there was a theft of energy as contemplated under sec. 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and warned the petitioner of criminal prosecution. He further submitted that when no infirmity was found during the inspection on 22/6/2010, it is surprise to note that the respondent board made another inspection on 13.07. 2010 and found the theft of electricity. However, in view of the warning raised by the respondent, the petitioner proposed to compound the offence under Sec. 152(1) of the Act by paying a sum of Rs.5,10,000.00 on the same day itself and accordingly, he has also paid the amount. However, the first respondent issued the impugned assessment notice on the very same day demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,28,891.00.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that only the Special Court has the jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of the consumer under Sec. 154(5) of the Act. According to him, the Special Courts are constituted under Sec. 153 of the Act and the Special Courts alone are empowered to try offences under Ss. 135 to 139 of the Act. The Special Courts should also determine the civil liability against the consumer in terms of money for the theft of energy as per Sec. 154(5) of the Act and the respondent cannot usurp the power of determination of civil liability arising out of theft of energy. The civil liability is also defined as loss of damage incurred by the licensee for theft of energy. Therefore, the civil liability, if any, can be decided by the Special Court, viz., Principal District and Sessions Court, Tuticorin, notified under the Act.