THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30982 of 2014 Dated: 16.10.2014 Between:
Devareddy Nagur Reddy .. Petitioner and Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N. Siva Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: Mr. P. Vinod Kumar
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Lr.No.ADE/C&O/KTA/F.doc/D.No.1641/14 dated 24.09.2014 of respondent No.3, whereby he has provisionally assessed the value of the energy allegedly stolen by the petitioner.
Respondent No.3, who made the provisional assessment under the above-mentioned proceedings, has also directed the petitioner to approach respondent No.4 for payment of compounding fee of Rs.80,000/- for closure of criminal case as first offence under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’).
Under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. Under sub-section (6) thereof, any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission.
At the hearing, Mr. P. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, submitted that respondent No.1 has constituted the fora stipulated under the above-mentioned provisions of the Act and that these fora have been effectively functioning.
In view of the same, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition to the extent of validity or otherwise of the provisional assessment made by respondent No.3 at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to raise his grievance relating to the said aspect before the fora under Sections 42(5) and (6) of the Act.
With regard to the compounding fees, it is submitted by Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent No.4 has not been accepting the same unless the petitioner has paid the provisional assessment demanded under the provisional assessment notice.
After hearing the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, I am of the opinion that such an approach of respondent No.4 runs counter to the provisions of Section 152 of the Act, which read as under:
Compounding of offences:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Appropriate Government or any officer authorized 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 Nature 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. Industrial Service twenty thousand rupees;
2. Commercial Service ten thousand rupees;
3. Agricultural Service two thousand rupees;
4. Other Services four thousand rupees:
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.
From the above-reproduced statutory provision, it is evident that a consumer has a right to seek compounding of offence, which is unconnected with the civil liability. Therefore, respondent No.4 cannot link up the petitioner’s request for compounding the offence with his civil liability. In this view of the matter, respondent No.4 is directed to accept the petitioner’s offer for compounding the offence without insisting on proof of payment of any part of the provisional assessment amount.
The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.38735 and 38736 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th October, 2014 IBL