IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2502 of 2013 … Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh, son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Sanjay Chowk, Ward No. 8, P.O. & P.S. - Seraikela, District – Saraikela (Kharsawan). … Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Town Ranchi P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi through its Chairman.
2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Bistupur, Jamshedpur.
3. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Singhbhum Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Chaibasa.
4. Electrical Executive Engineer, Singhbhum Electrical Supply Area, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Chandil.
5. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Sub Division, Saraikela.
6. Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Sub Division (Urban), Saraikela. … Respondents … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. … For the Petitioner : - Mr. Nitin Pasari, Advocate. For the Respondents : - Mr. (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. … 06/28.04.2016 This writ application has been filed for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to grant electrical connection in the premises of the petitioner, because the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. It appears that initially a first information report lodged against the petitioner vide Seraikela P.S. Case No. 42 of 2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the said first information report, it is alleged that though the petitioner had taken the electrical connection for 2KW, but on the date of occurrence, he was consuming 16KW electricity and thereby put loss to the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/-. It appears that after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner faced trial in the court below. The court below after concluding the trial vide judgment dated 16.01.2013 has acquitted the -2- petitioner by observing that no case made out under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, rather from the facts of the case, this is a case of misuse of electricity covered by Section 126 of the Electricity Act. It appears that after acquittal of the petitioner, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board initiated a proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. It is stated in the counter affidavit that vide letter no. 64 dated 24.05.2013, the Board asked the petitioner to file objection, if he so desire, to the preliminary assessment order made by the Assessing Authority. It is stated that inspite of the said letter, the petitioner had not filed any objection. However, this fact is disputed by the petitioner in the I.A. No. 3452 of 2015, and stated that no such notice received by the petitioner. It appears that the respondents passed the final order of assessment on 20.06.2014. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A. No. 3452 of 2015, wherein he challenged the aforesaid final assessment order. It is submitted by Sri Nitin Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, it is not open for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to initiate proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. He further submits that even if the Board has power to initiate said proceeding, the same is violative of the provisions contained under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, because the petitioner has not been given opportunity to raise objection against the preliminary assessment order. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that from perusal of the judgment passed in G.R. No. 403 of 2010, it is clear that learned Magistrate had acquitted the petitioner because according to him the case does not covered by Section 135 of the Electricity Act, rather the same is covered by Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Thus, in view of the observation of the learned Magistrate, the present proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was initiated. He then submits that the Board categorically stated in para-7 of its -3- counter affidavit that petitioner was informed by letter no. 64 dated 24.05.2013 for raising any objection, if he so desire, against the preliminary assessment order, but no such objection filed. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh further submits that no rejoinder filed on behalf of petitioner against the aforesaid counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be accepted. It is submitted that final assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act is appealable under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, therefore, the amendment application filed by the petitioner by way of I.A. is not maintainable. Accordingly, Sri Singh submits that unless the petitioner pay the remaining assessment amount, no connection can be given in the premises of the petitioner. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. I.A. No. 3452 of 2015 has been filed with a prayer to amend the main writ application because during the pendency of the writ application, the assessing authority issued final assessment order on 20.06.2014. Admittedly, the aforesaid order is appealable under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Under the said circumstance, in view of the statutory alternative remedy, I am not inclined to allow I.A. No. 3452 of 2015. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Now coming to the main writ application, it appears that the petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment dated 16.01.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Seraikella in G.R. No. 403 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 119 of 2013. A bare perusal of aforesaid judgment shows that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, because according to the learned Magistrate the case for extracting electricity beyond the sanctioned load. Thus, according to the learned Magistrate the same falls under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It appears that keeping in view the aforesaid observation, the -4- Electricity Board initiated a proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Nitin Pasari that after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, the respondent Electricity Board has no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Board. As noticed above, the learned Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting the petitioner has observed that the case falls under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and in that view of the matter the Electricity Board has all right to initiate the proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Thus, there is no illegality in initiation of proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Now coming to the next question raised by Sri Nitin Pasari, that the order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act is violative of Section 126(3) of the said Act, because petitioner was not given any opportunity to raise objection against the preliminary order. The aforesaid submission of Sri Pasari cannot be accepted in view of the statement made at paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Board, wherein it is specifically stated that vide letter no. 64 dated 24.05.2013 the Board served a notice upon the petitioner and informed him that if the petitioner so-desire may raise objection against the preliminary assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. This statement has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. However, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact the petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority on 17.06.2013, which shows that he knows about the above proceeding. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed. ( Prashant Kumar, J.) sunil/