Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
J.V.V.N. Ltd. And Anr vs Anjeev Kumar And Anr. ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:16008]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5383/2006
1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Officer-in-Chief,
Superintendent Engineer, Satipura, Hanumangarh Junction,
District: Hanumangarh.
2. Assistant Engineer (Rural), Jodhpur Discom, Hanumangarh
Junction, District: Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Anjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal Bishnoi, Resident of Chak
No.49, N.G.C. Tehsil & District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal Bishnoi, Resident of Chak
No.49, N.G.C. Tehsil & District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
Through Sh. Shyam Sunder, Resident of Shilapeer Marg,
Shakti Nagar, Ward No.13, Hanumangarh, Tehsil & District
Hanumangarh.
3. District Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Modi.
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
26/03/2025
1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner- Jodhpur
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as
'Nigam') have assailed the validity of the award dated 28.03.2006
(Annex.4) passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh
in PLA Case No.47/2003, whereby the application preferred by the
respondents No.1 and 2 has been partly allowed and the
respondents have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,800/-
[2025:RJ-JD:16008] (2 of 6) [CW-5383/2006]
with the petitioner Nigam while setting aside the demand raised
by the petitioners, in a case of theft of electricity, with a further
direction to adjust the amount paid excess i.e. Rs.8,200/- in
future bills of the respondents.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ
petition are that the respondents No.1 and 2 filed a complaint
before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh
challenging the demand of Rs.37,638/- raised against them by the
petitioner Nigam. In the application, it was inter-alia stated that
the respondents obtained agriculture electric connection on
27.06.2002 and the bills were paid by them regularly. On
23.05.2005, an inspection was carried out by the officials of the
Nigam on their agriculture field and the meter installed at the
agriculture field was removed and a new meter was installed. It
was further stated that the petitioner Nigam thereafter raised a
demand of Rs.37,638/- in the Bill of August, 2003. The
respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded before the learned Permanent
Lok Adalat that neither they have tampered with the meter seals,
nor have committed theft of electricity. The respondents thus
prayed that demand raised by the Nigam is illegal and, therefore,
the same be set aside.
3. On being served with the summons of the application, on
behalf of petitioners, reply to the application was filed while
refuting the averments made in the application. It was specifically
stated that on 23.05.2003 the vigilance survey team inspected the
agriculture field of the respondents, and it was found that meter
seals were broken and the meter was tampered with a view not to
allow the meter to record the actual consumption of the electricity
[2025:RJ-JD:16008] (3 of 6) [CW-5383/2006]
and thus the respondents No.1 and 2 were indulged in committing
theft of electricity. The petitioner Nigam thereafter calculated the
amount of fine to the tune of Rs.43,072/-, from which a sum of
Rs.3888/- was deposited by the respondents and rest amount was
due on the respondents No.1 and 2. It was further stated that the
respondents/consumers by illegal means committed offence of
electricity theft, for which they were/are liable to be punished. The
petitioner thus made provisional assessment under the provisions
of relevant Rules and Regulations and it was claimed that the
respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- and thus a
notice was issued, however, despite receipt of the notice, the
amount was not paid by the respondents/consumers.
4. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner Nigam had also
placed on record the Vigilance Checking Report dated 23.05.2003
as Annex.3 for perusal of the Court, wherein it has been stated
that meter installed at the consumers' premises was found
tampered from the body seals and rebut was found tampered,
which tantamount to offence under Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 2003.
5. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the
learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh vide its award
impugned dated 28.03.2006 (Annex.4) partly allowed the
application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 while holding the
respondents No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.11,800/- only and also
directed the petitioners to adjust the amount of Rs.8200/- in
future bills.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 28.03.2006
(Annex.4), the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:16008] (4 of 6) [CW-5383/2006]
7. While issuing notices and admitting the instant writ petition,
a Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the effect and operation
of the order dated 28.03.2006. As per office report dated
08.05.2008, all the three notices received duly served, however,
despite service nobody had put in appearance on behalf of
respondents.
8. While drawing attention of the Court towards VCR dated
23.05.2003 (Annex.3), learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that on inspection, the meter seals of the
meter installed at the premises of the consumer were found
tampered and the said act of the respondents No.1 and 2 was of
theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that disputed meter
was seized in the presence of the consumer and a new meter was
installed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
vehemently submits that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has
gone ahead its jurisdiction in view of the fact that it being a case
of theft, could not have been entertained or decided by the
Permanent Lok Adalat in the light of Section 22-C (8) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Áct of 1987'). He further submits
that compounding could have been done only according to Section
152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and thus the directions issued by
the learned Permanent Lok Adalat are absolutely illegal and
without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied
upon a judgment passed by Bombay High Court in the case of the
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v.
Badrinath Pema Rathod : Writ Petition No.3425/2019 decided on
14.01.2022.
[2025:RJ-JD:16008] (5 of 6) [CW-5383/2006]
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
learned Permanent Lok Adalat has not considered the provisions of
Section 19 (5) of the Act of 1987, according to which, the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction only in the cases where
there is any chance of compromise or settlement between the
parties. To fortify his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Phulan Rani & Ors. :2004
(7) SCC 555, wherein it has been held that if, case does not
involve compromise or settlement, the Lok Adalat cannot dispose
of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Permanent Lok Adalat can decide and dispose of the matters,
wherein the parties are ready and willing for compromise or there
is an amicable settlement, however, the parties are not ready for
compromise/amicable settlement, then the matter was required to
be transferred to the appropriate forum. He further submits that
respondent/consumer was guilty of committing offence under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act for theft of electricity, however,
this vital aspect has not been considered by the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat while passing the impugned award.
10. Despite service none is present to defend the impugned
award.
11. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioners at length and have perused the material available on
record.
12. A bare perusal of the VCR (Annex.3), it is apparent that the
meter installed at the premises of the respondents No.1 and 2 was
found tampered, inasmuch as the seals were found broken and
[2025:RJ-JD:16008] (6 of 6) [CW-5383/2006]
the said act of the respondents No.1 and 2 tantamount to offence
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, in the first
instance, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in
entertaining the application of the respondents No.1 and 2, where
the respondents/consumers were found indulged in committing
theft of electricity by tampering with the metering
equipment/seals. Further, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat that
is having no expertise to deal with the matters involving theft of
electricity and thus has gone beyond its jurisdiction in view of the
fact that it being a case of theft, could not have been entertained
or decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat in the light of Section 22-
C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Further, the
learned Permanent Lok Adalat has not considered the provisions of
Section 19 (5) of the Act of 1987, which provides that Permanent
Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction only in the cases, where there is
any chance of compromise or settlement between the parties,
such is not the case here.
13. Considering the over all facts and circumstances, the
impugned award is apparently bad and, therefore, the same
deserves to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award
dated 28.03.2006 (Annex.4) passed by learned Permanent Lok
Adalat, Hanumangarh is set aside. No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
33-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
