# M/s Torrent Power Ltd v. The State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 29
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41139 of 2012
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-torrent-power-ltd-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42920
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Jurisdiction
of permanent Lok Adalat-consumer foundusing electricity power for commercial
purpose-having
valid
connection
for
domestic use-on inspection fine imposed
under section 126-instead of filing appealcomplaint filed before Lok Adalat-offence
of unauthorise use of electricity amounts
to theft-compoundable under Section 152Lok Adalat can entertain the claim-but
without making effort for conciliation-can
not give adjudication on merit-order
passed by Lok Adalat-quashed-general
direction issued for strict compliance.

Held: Para-27
In the light of the aforesaid, the matter
relating to theft of energy is an offence
under the Electricity Act, 2003 and even
though such offence is compoundable, the
Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction
to entertain the dispute for the purpose of
conciliation and settlement but upon its
failure, the Permanent Lok Adalat could
not proceed to decide the matter on
merits.

Case Law discussed:
2012(8) SCC 261; 2012(8) SCC 243; 2008(7)
SCC 454.

## Text

1 All] M/s Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
29

18. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
the Writ Petition No.62595 of 2009 fails
and is dismissed. The order dated 3rd
June, 2010 is quashed and the Writ
Petition No.39671 of 2010 is allowed.

19. In the circumstances of the case,
parties shall bear their own cost.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41139 of 2012

M/s Torrent Power Ltd.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and Ors... .Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashutosh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.L. Jain

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Jurisdiction
of permanent Lok Adalat-consumer foundusing electricity power for commercial
purpose-having
valid
connection
for
domestic use-on inspection fine imposed
under section 126-instead of filing appealcomplaint filed before Lok Adalat-offence
of unauthorise use of electricity amounts
to theft-compoundable under Section 152Lok Adalat can entertain the claim-but
without making effort for conciliation-can
not give adjudication on merit-order
passed by Lok Adalat-quashed-general
direction issued for strict compliance.

Held: Para-27
In the light of the aforesaid, the matter
relating to theft of energy is an offence
under the Electricity Act, 2003 and even
though such offence is compoundable, the
Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction
to entertain the dispute for the purpose of
conciliation and settlement but upon its
failure, the Permanent Lok Adalat could
not proceed to decide the matter on
merits.

Case Law discussed:
2012(8) SCC 261; 2012(8) SCC 243; 2008(7)
SCC 454.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The petitioner is a distribution
franchise of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Ltd. and is authorized to operate and
maintain
the
distribution
system
for
supplying electricity to the consumers in the
urban areas of Agra. Respondent no.3 is a
consumer of electricity having obtained a
sanctioned load of 7.5 KVA for domestic
purposes. It transpires that an inspection
was carried out on 19th September, 2011 at
the premises of respondent no.3 and it was
found that respondent no.3 was using the
domestic
connection
for
commercial
purposes, namely, for office purposes. Since
the consumption of energy was being used
unauthorizedly for a purpose other than for
what it was given, a report was submitted
by the inspection team for unauthorized use
of electricity. Based on this inspection
report, a provisional assessment was made
by the petitioner under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act of 2003) demanding a sum of
Rs.42,266.30. The respondents, instead of
filing an appeal under Section 127 of the
Act of 2003, filed an application before the
Permanent Lok Adalat for the quashing of
the assessment bill as well as the inspection
report.
The
petitioner
appeared
and
contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat
had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim
as it related to the unauthorized use of
electricity, which was an offence and,
consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or
decide the dispute on merits. The petitioner
further contended that an assessment was
made under Section 126 of the Act of 2003,
against which an appeal lies under Section
127 of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, the
respondent had a remedy under the
Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The Permanent Lok Adalat
without deciding the issue of jurisdiction
and without conciliating in the matter
proceeded to decide the matter on merit
and issued an award dated 21st June, 2012
allowing the claim by setting aside the
inspection report and the assessment bill.

3. Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava,
the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri M.L. Jain, the learned counsel for
respondent no.3.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that a complaint
relating to theft of energy was not
maintainable as it was an offence and,
consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat
did not have the jurisdiction to entertain or
decide the dispute on merits. The learned
counsel further submitted that the primary
object of the Permanent Lok Adalat was to
conciliate and settle the matter at the prelitigation stage and only upon failure of the
conciliation, that it was open to the
Permanent Lok Adalat to proceed and
decide the matter on merits. The learned
counsel submitted that in the instant case,
no effort whatsoever was made for
conciliation and the Permanent Lok Adalat
proceeded from the very inception as if it
only had an adjudicatory role to play.

5. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted
that it was a case of wrong billing, which
could be raised and decided by the
Permanent Lok Adalat.

6. In order to appreciate the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it would be essential to refer to
some of the provisions of The Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 and The
Electricity Act, 2003. Chapter VIA of The
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was
inserted by Act No.37 of 2002. The title
of this chapter states pre-litigation,
conciliation and settlement. Section 22A(a) defines Permanent Lok Adalat to
mean a Permanent Lok Adalat under subSection (1) of Section 22B. Public utility
service has been defined under Section
22-A(b), to mean:

"(i) transport service for the carriage
of passengers or goods by air, road or
water; or

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone
service; or

(iii) supply of power, light or water
to the public by any establishment; or

(iv) system of public conservancy or
sanitation; or

(v) service in hospital or dispensary;
or

(vi) insurance service,"

7. Section 22-C provides the
procedure for raising a dispute. For
facility, the entire provision of Section
22-C is extracted hereunder:

"22C. Cognizance of cases by
Permanent Lok Adalat - (1) Any party to
a dispute may, before the dispute is
brought before any court, make an
application to the Permanent Lok Adalat
for the settlement of dispute:

Provided that the Permanent Lok
Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in
1 All] M/s Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
31
respect of any matter relating to an
offence not compoundable under any law:

Provided further that the Permanent
Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in
the matter where the value of the property
in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:

Provided also that the Central
Government,
may,
by
notification,
increase the limit of ten lakh rupees
specified in the second proviso in
consultation with the

Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made
under sub-section (1) to the Permanent
Lok Adalat, no party to that application
shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in
the same dispute.

(3) Where an application is made to a
Permanent Lok Adalat under subsection
(1), it--

(a) shall direct each party to the
application to file before it a written
statement, stating therein the facts and
nature of dispute under the application,
points or issues in such dispute and
grounds relied in support of, or in
opposition to, such points or issues, as the
case may be, and such party may
supplement such statement with any
document and other evidence which such
party deems appropriate in proof of such
facts and grounds andshall send a copy of
such statement together with a copy of
such document and other evidence, if any,
to each of the parties to the application;

(b) may require any party to the
application to file additional statement
before it at any stage of the conciliation
proceedings;

(c) shall communicate any document
or statement received by it from any party
to the application to the other party, to
enable such other party to present reply
thereto.

(4)
When
statement,
additional
statement and reply, if any, have been
filed under sub-section (3), to the
satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat,
it shall conduct conciliation proceedings
between the parties to the application in
such manner as it thinks appropriate
taking into account the circumstances of
the dispute.

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall,
during
conduct
of
conciliation
proceedings under sub-section (4), assist
the parties in their attempt to reach an
amicable settlement of the dispute in an
independent and impartial manner.

(6) It shall be the duty of every party
to the application to cooperate in good
faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in
conciliation of the dispute relating to the
application and to comply with the
direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to
produce evidence and other related
documents before it.

(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat,
in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings,
is of opinion that there exist elements of
settlement in such proceedings which may
be acceptable to the parties, it may
formulate the terms of a possible
settlement of the dispute and give to the
parties concerned for their observations
and in case the parties reach at an
agreement on the settlement of the
dispute, they shall sign the settlement
agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat
shall pass an award in terms thereof and
furnish a copy of the same to each of the
parties concerned.

(8) Where the parties fail to reach at
an agreement under sub-section (7), the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute
does not relate to any offence, decide the
dispute."
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. A perusal of the aforesaid
provision provides that any party to a
dispute may make an application to the
Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement
of the dispute before such dispute is
brought before any court. The provision
also limits the jurisdiction
of the
Permanent Lok Adalat, namely, that the
Permanent Lok Adalat would not have
any jurisdiction to deal with any matter
relating to an offence not compoundable
under any law. The second proviso puts a
further cap on the pecuniary jurisdiction,
which provides that the Permanent Lok
Adalat will not have jurisdiction where
the value of the property in dispute
exceeds Rs.10 lacs, which has now been
enhanced to Rs.25 lacs. Sub-section (2) of
Section 22-C further puts an embargo on
the parties to a dispute, namely, that after
an application has been made before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, the parties could
not invoke the jurisdiction of any other
court with regard to the same dispute.

9. Section 22-C (3) provides the
procedure
to
be
followed
by
the
Permanent Lok Adalat, which relates to
the filing of a written statement by each
party stating therein the facts and nature
of the dispute and highlighting the points
or issues in such dispute and the
documents and other evidence in support
of
their
claim
or
objection.
The
Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-clause-
(4) of Section 22-C may require any party
to the application to file an additional
statement
or
document
and
upon
completion of the aforesaid procedure, the
Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-clause-
(5) of Section 22-C would proceed with
the conciliation proceedings and assist the
parties to reach an amicable settlement in
relation to the dispute. During the
conciliation proceedings, the Permanent
Lok Adalat is obliged to assist the parties
in an independent and impartial manner.
In the event, there is likelihood of a
settlement, the Permanent Lok Adalat
under sub-clause-(7) of Section 22-C is
required to formulate the terms of a
possible settlement of the dispute and
where parties reach an agreement, such
settlement shall be drawn and signed,
which will become an award. Sub-clause-
(8) of Section 22-C provides that where
parties fail to reach an agreement and if
the dispute does not relate to an offence,
in that case, the Permanent Lok Adalat
will decide the dispute on merit.

10. The validity of Chapter-VI-A of
the Legal Services Authorities Act was
upheld by the Supreme Court in the case
of S.N. Pandey Vs. Union of India and
another, 2012 (8) SCC 261 and Bar
Council of India Vs. Union of India, 2012
(8) SCC 243.

11. In Bar Council of India's case
(supra) the Supreme Court held that it
should be kept in mind that the dispute
relating to public utility services have been
entrusted to a Permanent Lok Adalat only if
the process of conciliation and settlement
fails. The emphasis is on settlement in
respect of disputes concerning public utility
services through the medium of Permanent
Lok Adalat and that settlement of dispute
between the parties in matters of public
utility services is the main theme. The
Supreme Court further held that where
despite the endeavour and efforts of the
Permanent Lok Adalat fails and the
settlement between the parties does not
come through, the said dispute is required to
be determined and adjudicated by the
Permanent Lok Adalat to avoid delay in the
adjudication of disputes relating to public
utility services.
1 All] M/s Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
33

12. Similarly, in United India
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajay Sinha
and another, 2008 (7) SCC 454 the Supreme
Court in paragraph 41 held that the
Permanent Lok Adalat must exercise its
power with due care and caution and that the
Permanent Lok Adalat must not give any
impression that it has only an adjudicatory
role to play in relation to its jurisdiction
without going into the statutory provision
and restrictions imposed thereunder.

13. In the instant case, the Court
finds that from a perusal of the award that
no effort whatsoever was made by the
Permanent Lok Adalat to settle the
dispute through conciliation. It is clear
that the Permanent Lok Adalat has
proceeded from the very inception as it
had only an adjudicatory role to play. The
procedure adopted by the Permanent Lok
Adalat was in total violation of the
mandate given under Chapter VI-A of the
State Legal Services Authorities Act and
the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
case of Bar Council of India (supra) and
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(supra). On this short ground the award
cannot be sustained.

14. However, the matter does not
end here. The question is, whether such
an application questioning the assessment
order, which relates to an offence could
be entertained and decided on merits by
the Permanent Lok Adalat. In this regard,
the provisions of the Act of 2003, is
required to be considered.

15. Section 126 of the Act of 2003
relates
to
making
a
provisional
assessment where it is found that a
consumer is indulging in unauthorize use
of electricity. For facility, the said
provision is extracted hereunder:-

"126. Assessment.- (1) If on an
inspection of any place or premises or
after inspection of the equipments,
gadgets,
machines,
devices
found
connected or used, or after inspection of
records maintained by any person, the
assessing officer comes to the conclusion
that
such
person
is
indulging
in
unauthorised use of electricity, he shall
provisionally assess to the best of his
judgment the electricity charges payable
by such person or by any other person
benefited by such use.

(2)
The
order
of
provisional
assessment shall be served upon the
person in occupation or possession or in
charge of the place or premises in such
manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The person, on whom an order
has been served under sub-section (2),
shall be entitled to file objections, if any,
against the provisional assessment before
the assessing officer, who shall, after
affording a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to such person, pass a final order
of assessment within thirty days from the
date of service of such order of
provisional assessment, of the electricity
charges payable by such person.

(4) Any person served with the order
of provisional assessment may, accept
such assessment and deposit the assessed
amount with the licensee within seven
days of service of such provisional
assessment order upon him:

(5) If the assessing officer reaches to
the conclusion that unauthorised use of
electricity has taken place, the assessment
shall be made for the entire period during
which such unauthorised use of electricity
has taken place and if, however, the
period during which such unauthorised
use of electricity has taken place cannot
be ascertained, such period shall be
limited to a period of twelve months
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
inspection.;

(6) The assessment under this section
shall be made at a rate equal to twice the
tariff applicable for the relevant category
of services specified in sub-section (5).

Explanation.--For the purposes of
this section,--

(a) "assessing officer" means an
officer of a State Government or Board or
licensee, as the case may be, designated
as such by the State Government;

(b) "unauthorised use of electricity"
means the usage of electricity--

(i) by any artificial means; or

(ii) by a means not authorised by the
concerned person or authority or licensee;

or (iii) through a tampered meter; or

(iv) for the purpose other than for
which the usage of electricity was
Authorized ; or

(v) for the premises or areas other
than those for which the supply of
electricity was authorised."

16. Explanation (b)(iv) provides that
the usage of electricity for the purpose
other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorized would amount
to unauthorized use of electricity.

17. In the instant case, an inspection
was made and it was found that the
consumer, who was granted a load for
domestic purposes was using it for
commercial purposes and, therefore, the
usage of electricity was being used for a
purpose other than for which the usage
was authorized. On this basis, an
assessment bill was issued under Section
126 of the Act of 2003.

18. Part-XIV of the Electricity Act
relates to offences and penalties. Section
135 of the Act of 2003 which comes
under Part-XIV provides that whoever
dishonestly
uses
electricity
for
the
purposes for which the usage of electricity
was authorized so as to abstract or
consume electricity shall be punished
with an imprisonment for a term. For
facility, Section 135 (i) (e) is extracted
hereunder:

"135(1)
Theft
of
electricity.-
Whoever, dishonestly,-

.... (e) uses electricity for the purpose
other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorized,

So as to abstract or consume or use
electricity shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine or with
both."

19. In the light of the provision of
Section 126 read with Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, it is apparently clear, that
usage of electricity for the purposes other
than for which the usage of electricity was
authorized amounts to a theft of electricity
and, is an offence punishable with an
imprisonment for a specified term.

20. The first proviso to Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act
provides that the Permanent Lok Adalat
shall not have jurisdiction in respect of
any matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law. In the
instant case, admittedly the matter is an
offence but the proviso to Section 22-C
directs that if the matter relates to an
offence which is not compoundable by
law, in that event, the Permanent Lok
Adalat will not have any jurisdiction.

21. Section 152 of the Electricity
Act provides for compounding of certain
1 All] M/s Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
35
offences. For facility, Section 152 is
extracted hereunder:

"152. Compounding of offences.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), the Appropriate Government or any
officer authorised by it in this behalf may
accept from any consumer or person who
committed or who is reasonably suspected of
having committed an offence of theft of
electricity punishable under this Act, a sum
of money by way of compounding of the
offence as specified in the Table below:

TABLE
Name of Service Rate
at which the sum of money for
compounding to be collected per Kilowatt
(KW)/ Horse Power (HP) or part thereof
for Low Tension (LT) supply and per
Kilo Volt Ampere (KVA) of contracted
demand for High Tension (HT)
-1

-2

1. Industrial Service Twenty
thousand rupees;
2. Commercial Service Ten thousand
rupees;
3. Agricultural Service Two thousand
rupees;
4. Other Services Four thousand
rupees:

22. Provided that the Appropriate
Government may, by notification in the
Official
Gazette,
amend
the
rates
specified in the Table above.

(2) On payment of the sum of money
in accordance with sub-section (1), any
person in custody in connection with that
offence shall be set at liberty and no
proceedings
shall
be
instituted
or
continued against such consumer or
person in any criminal court.

(3) The acceptance of the sum of
money for compounding an offence in
accordance with sub-section (1) by the
Appropriate Government or an officer
empowered in this behalf shall be deemed
to amount to an acquittal within the
meaning of section 300 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(4) The compounding of an offence
under sub-section (1) shall be allowed
only once for any person or consumer."

23. A perusal of the aforesaid
provision will clearly indicate that an offence
relating
to
theft
of
electricity
is
compoundable.

24. In the light of the aforesaid
provision, an application by a consumer
in a matter relating to theft of energy can
be filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
The Permanent Lok Adalat will have
jurisdiction
to
entertain
such
an
application for conciliation and for
settlement of the said dispute, in view of
first proviso to Section 22-C of the Act.

25. Further, the Court is of the
opinion that where the conciliation fails
between the parties and no settlement is
arrived at, the Permanent Lok Adalat
cannot proceed any further nor can it
decide the matter on merits under Section
22-C(viii) of the Act. The reason is not far
to see. The adjudicatory role, which the
Permanent Lok Adalat is required to
follow is only with regard to a dispute,
which does not relate to an offence under
sub-clause-(viii) The words used are
"does relate to an offence" which is totally
different and distinct from the words used
under the 1st proviso to Section 22-C(1),
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
namely, "matter relating to an offence not
compoundable in law".

26. Thus, where a dispute which is an
offence, but is compoundable can be
entertained by the Permanent Lok Adalat
for the purpose of conciliation and
settlement but, upon failure, the Permanent
Lok Adalat cannot proceed to decide such
matters on merit, if it relates to an offence
irrespective of the fact as to whether it is
compoundable or not. If the dispute relates
to an offence, the Permanent Lok Adalat
will have no jurisdiction to decide the
matter on merits.

27. In the light of the aforesaid, the
matter relating to theft of energy is an
offence under the Electricity Act, 2003 and
even though such offence is compoundable,
the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
has
the
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute for the
purpose of conciliation and settlement but
upon its failure, the Permanent Lok Adalat
could not proceed to decide the matter on
merits.

28. In the present case, the
Permanent Lok Adalat has decided the
matter on merits, which is without
jurisdiction. In the light of the aforesaid,
the impugned award of the Permanent
Lok Adalat cannot be sustained and is
quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

29. Let a certified copy of this order
be circulated by the Registrar General to
all the Permanent Lok Adalats within four
weeks for information and necessary
action.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47279 of 2012

Poonam Gour... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors... .Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Deepak Saxena, Sri Ranjit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Caste
certificate-petitioner
after
competing
M.B.B.S.-get admitted in M.S. course under
sc/st category-alleging herself to 'Gond'-as
per direction of Court earlier matter
referred to govt.-Distt. level committee as
well as state level committee-without
affording opportunity of hearing-held-
'Gond'-
as
kahar-the
backward
class
pursuance to direction of court appeared
final examination but result not declaredin view of law laid down by Apex Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind case
direction for declaration of result-given
issued ignoring caste certificate-subject to
outcome of decision of state level caste
security committee.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.)

1. Poonam Gour D/o Ram Kewal
resident of village and post Sihaitpur
District Gorakhpur has approached this
Court with a request to direct the State
Level
High
Power
Caste
Scrutiny
Committee, to verify the caste certificate of
the petitioner of Caste Gond sub Caste
Dhuriya in pursuance of the report of
vigilance dated 14.06.2011 and to quash the
order dated 14.10.2011 passed by State
Government, Social Welfare Department
wherein State Level High Power Caste
Scrutiny
Committee
has
asked
the
Committee constituted under Chairmanship