Gokul Chandra Maji vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8327 Cal

AD-13
Ct No.09
14.12.2022

TN WPA No. 26670 of 2022

Gokul Chandra Maji Vs.

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others

Mr. Pradip Paul, Mr. Gourab Ghosh .... for the petitioner

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee .... for the WBSEDCL

Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept

on record.

A preliminary objection is taken by learned

counsel for the West Bengal State Electricity

Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) to the

effect that a provisional order of assessment has been

passed which has been challenged in the present writ

petition despite availability of an appeal as alternative

remedy.

It transpires from the arguments of learned

counsel for the petitioner that parallel proceedings

were initiated against the petitioner, both under

Section 126 on the one hand and under Sections 154

and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter

referred to as "the 2003 Act") on the other.

The petitioner was acquitted from the criminal

proceeding on the observation that the charge had not

been proved against the petitioner.

The question which has arisen in the present

case is whether such acquittal ipso facto absolves the

petitioner from the liability to deposit the money

claimed by way of final order of assessment.

Although the petitioner has relied on an

observation of the criminal court passed in the

proceeding under Section 135 to the effect that since

the allegation of theft has been disbelieved, the civil

liability under Section 154 does not stand on its own

ground, such finding of the criminal court is not

binding inasmuch as the civil liability of the petitioner

is concerned.

Moreover, the finding was not rendered directly

in connection with the proceeding under Section 154

but in connection with the proceeding under Section

135 of the 2003 Act and, as such, the binding effect of

the same on the civil liability is doubtful.

Learned counsel for the WBSEDCL seeks to

place reliance on certain judgments in support of the

proposition that proceedings under Sections 126 and

135 of the 2003 Act are parallel proceedings and

independently proceed on their own footing. Further,

it is argued that the provisions of Section 126 cast a

civil liability for which the yardstick of adjudication is

different than a criminal liability under Section 135 of

the 2003 Act.

Be that as it may, since learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks an adjournment for obtaining further

instructions, the matter is adjourned till

December 19, 2022.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)