TORRENT POWER LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a distribution franchise of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and is authorized to operate and maintain the distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in the urban areas of Agra. Respondent no.3 is a consumer of electricity having obtained a sanctioned load of 7.5 KVA for domestic purposes. It transpires that an inspection was carried out on 19th September, 2011 at the premises of respondent no.3 and it was found that respondent no.3 was using the domestic connection for commercial purposes, namely, for office purposes. Since the consumption of energy was being used unauthorizedly for a purpose other than for what it was given, a report was submitted by the inspection team for unauthorized use of electricity. Based on this inspection report, a provisional assessment was made by the petitioner under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003) demanding a sum of Rs.42,266.30. The respondents, instead of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Act of 2003, filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for the quashing of the assessment bill as well as the inspection report. The petitioner appeared and contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim as it related to the unauthorized use of electricity, which was an offence and, consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or decide the dispute on merits. The petitioner further contended that an assessment was made under Section 126 of the Act of 2003, against which an appeal lies under Section 127 of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, the respondent had a remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) The Permanent Lok Adalat without deciding the issue of jurisdiction and without conciliating in the matter proceeded to decide the matter on merit and issued an award dated 21st June, 2012 allowing the claim by setting aside the inspection report and the assessment bill.

(3.) Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.L. Jain, the learned counsel for respondent no.3.