Ashok Kumar Maity vs The West Bengal State Electricity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 53 Cal

10th January,

(AK)

W.P.A 21298 of 2021

Ashok Kumar Maity Vs.

The West Bengal State Electricity Board, through Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distributor Company Limited and others

(Via Video Conference)

Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati Ms. Afreen Begum Mr. Ratikanta Pal ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee ...for the WBSEDCL.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, in

view of the criminal court having subsequently acquitted

the petitioner of the allegation of theft and alleged

dishonest use of the electric meter by the petitioner,

which was the only premise of the provisional

assessment-in-question being raised, the said assessment

ought to be set aside.

It is further contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner, by placing reliance on Clause 6.02 of

Regulation 14/WBERC dated February 5, 2004, that the

supply of electricity to the consumer, if disconnected due

to theft/tampering etc., shall be reconnected or restored

on fulfillment of the penal action as prescribed under

Sections 135, 138 and/or 139 of the Electricity Act 2003.

In the present matter, since the proceeding under

such sections has already been dropped and the

petitioner acquitted by the competent criminal court,

whether the allegation of theft against the petitioner,

which is the only premise of raising the impugned bill,

still retains validity.

Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of a

learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench, Allahabad

High Court, reported at AIR 2009 All 137 (M/s. Citi Hotel

vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Divn., Lucknow & Ors.) in

support of his proposition.

Learned counsel appearing for the Distribution

Company seeks to place reliance on certain judgments,

including a Division Bench judgment of this court, which

apparently indicate that the respective scopes of Section

126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are

different.

It is further contended by learned counsel for the

Distribution Company that, in the present case, unlike

the report relied on by the petitioner, the allegation was

not confined to theft but also alleged dishonest

consumption of electricity.

As such, it is argued that the facts of the present

case are different from the case before the Allahabad High

Court.

Be that as it may, since learned counsel for the

Distribution Company seeks to place reliance on certain

judgments, learned counsel is requested to indicate and

serve copies of the said judgments beforehand on her/his

counterpart appearing for the petitioner.

The matter shall next be enlisted tomorrow, that is,

January 11, 2022 under the same heading for further

hearing and disposal.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)