Gokul Chandra Maji vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8461 Cal

19th December,

(AK)

W.P.A 26670 of 2022

Gokul Chandra Maji Vs.

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others

Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya Mr. Pradip Paul Mr. Gourango Ghosh ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee ...for the WBSEDCL.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in

view of the petitioner being absolved from civil liability

under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the

ground that the petitioner was acquitted in a proceeding

on the allegation of theft under Section 135 of the said

Act, the petitioner's liability to pay the finally assessed

amount under Section 126 of the 2003 Act has also to be

waived.

Learned counsel contends that the WBSEDCL itself

had given an adjustment with the quantum of fifty per

cent of the total dues, which was deposited by the

petitioner as security for obtaining bail, upon raising a

demand that the petitioner was to pay Rs. 73,181/- and

assessed LPSC to the tune of Rs. 5,217/- for getting the

electricity connection restored.

However, in view of the lapse of 180 days from the

disconnection, the petitioner now has to apply for a new

electricity connection upon depositing the requisite

amounts therefor and putting in the outstanding dues as

claimed by the WBSEDCL.

A point has been urged by learned counsel for the

petitioner to the effect that since the criminal court, while

deciding the proceeding under Section 135 of the

Electricity Act, 2003, made an observation that although

it is a duty of the special court to determine the civil

liability of the accused under Section 154, in view of

discharge of the petitioner from the criminal proceeding,

there is no further scope for the determination of civil

liability in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes an

interesting argument that the observation was made in

the context of Section 154 of the 2003 Act, which is on a

parallel footing with a proceeding under Section 126 of

the said Act since both operate in the field of civil liability.

The petitioner having thus been absolved from the

civil liability as imposed under Section 154, the

Distribution Licensee can no longer insist upon exacting

the dues under Section 126 of the 2003 Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL

submits that it is well-settled that proceedings under

Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 operate

in separate and distinct fields, inasmuch as the scope of

adjudication in the two are dissimilar, to the extent that

one applies the yardsticks of a civil adjudication and the

other of a criminal decision.

Learned counsel cites a judgment of this court

reported at (2022) SCC Online Cal 184 (Ashok Kumar

Maity vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board through

Chairman, WBSEDCL and others) in support of such

proposition.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and a

scrutiny of the order passed by the criminal court under

Section 135 of the 2003 Act, it transpires that the

criminal court, without going into the merits of the civil

liability adjudicable by the Special Court under Section

154 of the 2003 Act, merely made an observation that it

is the duty of the Special Court to determine the civil

liability of the accused to compensate the loss or damage

suffered by the Distribution Licensee on account of

commission of offence, inter-alia, punishable under

Section 135 of the 2003 Act.

It was further observed by the criminal court that, in

the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the

commission of offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the

Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 against the accused

and, therefore there is no scope for the determination of

"civil liability" in this case.

However, it has to be noticed that the criminal

court, while making such observation under Section 135

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, travelled beyond its

jurisdiction in arriving at purported conclusions under

Section 154 of the 2003 Act, that too in respect of the civil

liability of the consumer, which was not even appearing

for consideration before the criminal court.

That apart, the line of approach of the criminal

court in that regard was patently erroneous to the extent

that the civil liability of a consumer does not get absolved

automatically by acquittal in a proceeding under Section

135 of the 2003 Act.

However, in the present case, the WBSEDCL itself,

as fairly pointed out by learned counsel for the

WBSEDCL, has given an adjustment to the fifty per cent

deposited by the petitioner by way of security for bail and

has claimed Rs.73,181/- as the remaining dues along

with Rs. 5217/- as Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC).

Hence, there is no reason for imposing a more

exorbitant payment on the petitioner for the purpose of

getting restoration of electricity connection by way of a

new electricity supply.

Hence, WPA 26670 of 2022 is disposed of by

directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.

73,181/- in lieu of the balance due and Rs. 5217/- as

LPSC till May 31, 2022, as well as any further liability,

which the WBSEDCL may calculate in its quotation,

taking into account the subsequent period.

If such amount is deposited by the petitioner and

the petitioner makes a fresh application for a new

electricity connection, such connection shall be given to

the petitioner upon payment of such amount as indicated

above and upon compliance of due formalities in law.

However, it is made clear that the new connection

shall ultimately be subject to the WBSEDCL being able to

realize the balance of fifty per cent from the petitioner

upon giving adequate installments, as the WBSEDCL

deems fit.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)