Dismissed

Dani Ram Sinha (Died through Lrs) v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026WPC/2465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal representatives of Dani Ram Sinha seeking restoration of an electricity connection and refund of Rs. 95,000/- deposited with the electricity distribution company. The petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not extinguish civil liability for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Orion Metal Private Limited. The court found no ground to interfere with the demand raised by the respondents and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

Dani Ram Sinha (Died through Lrs) Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010113022021

2026:CGHC:40775

NAFR

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 2465 of 2021

¶8

1 - Dani Ram Sinha (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-07-2026

¶9

1.1 - Pushpa Sinha W/o Dani Ram Sinha Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Somajhitiya, Post - Mathaldabri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Tejovrish Sinha S/o Dani Ram Sinha Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Of Mother Pushpa Sinha, R/o Village - Somajhitiya, Post - Mathaldabri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Devnandani Sinha D/o Dani Ram Sinha Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Of Mother Pushpa Sinha, R/o Village - Somajhitiya, Post - Mathaldabri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited - Daganiya, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon Division, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Junior Engineer (Repair And Production) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

¶14

For Petitioner :- Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶15

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

18.09.2026

¶18

Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

¶19

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of petitioner's case.

¶20

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to provide electricity connection in his house with immediate manner and within stipulated period.

¶21

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to remit back the deposit amount of Rs. 95,000/- with interest.

¶22

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and have failed to take any decision on the petitioner's representation seeking restoration/provision of electricity connection to his residential premises and refund of the amount of Rs.95,000/- deposited by him. It is submitted that the electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected on the allegation that the meter had been bypassed and that unauthorized consumption of electricity had taken place. Learned counsel submits that the alleged

¶24

¶25

connection was in the name of the petitioner's wife and was being used for M/s Nandini Drinking Water, bearing Meter No. LANDIS409LNG131317, and that, without conducting a proper enquiry, the respondents treated the said meter as connected with the petitioner's residential premises and disconnected the electricity supply. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was prosecuted in Special Electricity Case No.24/2017 before the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Rajnandgaon, for the alleged offences, but after considering the material available on record and examining the witnesses, the learned Special Judge acquitted the petitioner by judgment dated 10.02.2020. It is contended that despite the petitioner's acquittal, the respondents have failed to consider his request for providing electricity connection to his house. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner thereafter submitted a representation seeking provision of electricity connection and refund of the deposited amount of Rs.95,000/-. Respondent No.2 forwarded the said representation to respondent No.3 for necessary action; however, no decision has been taken thereon till date. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within a stipulated period and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Electricity Department submits that the criminal liability and civil liability arising under the Electricity Act, 2003 operate in distinct fields. He submits that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings only

¶27

¶28

means that the allegation of theft levelled against him could not be proved in accordance with the standard applicable to a criminal proceeding, and the petitioner was accordingly acquitted. Such acquittal, by itself, does not extinguish the civil liability arising out of unauthorised use or consumption of electricity. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are, therefore, not precluded from recovering the amount payable towards the electricity consumed/unauthorised use merely on account of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. In support of his submission, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others v. Orion Metal Private Limited and Another, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 588 , wherein the distinction between the proceedings relating to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 and criminal proceedings relating to theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been recognised. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgment of acquittal rendered in the criminal proceeding would not, by itself, operate as a bar against determination and recovery of the amount payable in respect of unauthorised consumption/use of electricity in accordance with law.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

From a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Rajnandgaon, in Special Electricity Case No.

¶31

¶32

24/2017, it appears that the learned criminal Court, while acquitting the petitioner, found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of theft levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, insofar as the allegation of theft is concerned, the same was not proved in the criminal proceedings.

¶33

However, the question of liability towards the electricity consumed/unauthorised use of electricity stands on a different footing. The liability in respect of unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is distinct from the criminal liability arising from the alleged theft under Section 135 of the said Act. Even where the charge of theft of electricity is not established in a criminal prosecution, the competent authority retains the power under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to assess and raise a demand against the person found to have made unauthorised use of electricity. Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, by itself, would not preclude the respondents from initiating or continuing proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in accordance with law. The distinction between the two proceedings, as noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Supra) , is relevant in the present case.

¶34

In the present case, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the demand raised by the respondents towards the electricity charges in respect of the consumption in question. The

¶35

¶36

amount payable having already been deposited by the petitioner, no

¶37

further interference is warranted in the matter.

¶38