MUKESH KUMAR Vs. DHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are connected and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners' premises were raided on 19.09.2003 and it was imputed against the petitioners that there had been a theft of electrical energy. The proceedings were initiated under the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948 which is brought in challenge before this Court on a plea that the Electricity Act of 2003 alone is applicable and the procedure to be followed under the relevant Regulations for theft of energy has not been followed. This argument is placed on the basis that the Electricity Act of 2003 had come into force on 10.06.2003 and the alleged theft was said to have been detected on 19.09.2003. Consequently all the proceedings could have been taken only under that Act and since, 1948 Act had been repealed by the 2003 Act, a notice issued under the repealed Act is not competent and further proceedings that were taken were also incompetent.

(3.) THE counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would state that a notification was issued on 08.09.2003 suspending the operation of the Act for a period of six months from the appointed date which power was available to the State by virtue of transitional provisions contained under Section 172(d) of the Electricity Act of 2003. Since the notification had been issued on 08.09.2003 and the search itself was made only subsequent to the said date only on 19.09.2003, the provisions of the 2003 Act could not be invoked in view of the notification and they were entitled to proceed under the 1948 Act itself.