MOHD. HALEEM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vashudeo Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned recovery notice issued by the respondent no.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Baldiray, District Sultanpur contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petitioner for recovery of electricity dues amounting to Rs.6,77,400/-.

(3.) The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned recovery notice is completely without jurisdiction as much as there is no provision in Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of dues consequence of 'Theft of Electricity' as the same power is vested to Special Courts established by Part XV of Electricity Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as "2003 Act". 4. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 154 5. and 154 6. of the Electricity Act, it is only jurisdiction of Special Courts to decide the dues in regard to 'Theft of Electricity' and, therefore, any kind of demand notice in this regard is against the law and without jurisdiction. He submits that until and unless the case arisen out of F.I.R. No. 246 of 2018 dated 24.10.2018 is not decided finally, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of 'Theft of Electricity' and therefore, till then, the petitioner is not subjected to any kind of recovery in regard of consequence of alleged theft.