This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 03.03.2021 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Malda in C.C. No. 9 of 2021.

The instant C.C. was registered before the Ld. DCDRC Malda.

The consumer complainant case is brief is that he possesses an electric service connection since long and which is located in District of Malda, P.S- Chanchal, Mouse-Belungaeon Dag No. 1167 and the petitioner would run a Pump Set for Irrigation purpose. He used to pay the consumed electric charge to the opposite party regularly.

That the petitioner paid the last electric bill amounting to Rs. 3500/- on 19-07-2018. In the course of running the said submersible Pump a F.I. R. was lodged against him by the then Station Manager, Arka Basak, before the Chanchal Police Station being Chanchal P.S. case No. 482/18 dated 23-07-2018 Under Section 135(1)(b) / 135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act relating to Electricity Case No. 436/18. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that, he was running his Pump Set by Consuming electricity by means of direct hooking by passing One Phase using jointed single Core PVC Cable and so his electric service connection was disconnected on that date i.e., on 23-07-2018 and still is in dis connected position.

 That the said Case was sent before the Ld. Additional District Judge, ld. Court, Malda and after investigation Charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer of the said case.

 That after institution of the said case the petitioner Surrendered before the Learned said Court and released on bail. There after charge was framed against him U/S 135(1)(b)/135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act on 15-7-2019.

 That the Prosecution adduced as many as 06 (Six) witnesses. Having heard both the prosecution as well as Defence Counsel the Learned Trial Court hold the petitioner not guilty of the aforesaid charge and he was there by acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. on 21-11-2020.

 That the petitioner having acquitted and getting the certified copy of acquittal went to the concerned Customer Care Centre on 15-12-2020 and gave a petition for re-connection of his dis-connected said service connection, but the Station Manager dictated him to deposit the Final Assessment amount as per Sec.126 of the Electricity Act. But during post acquittal stage the aforesaid Section cannot be invoked.

          That finding no other alternative An Advocate Notice was sent to the Station Manager through Registered Post on 28-12-2020 stating to reconnect his said connection within 07 (Seven) days, but the opposite Party did not turn up to reconnect the service connection of the petitioner. Due to not reconnecting the service connection the petitioner suffers irrep rabble loss and injury.

         That as the opposite party did not reconnect the electric servicing connection of the petitioner, so finding no other alternative has filed the present case.

         That the Cause of action arose on 15-12-2020 while the petitioner gave an application to the opposite party to reconnect his service connection of Submersible Pump 8x1 but did not perform the same and lastly on 28-12-2020 while the Advocate Notice was sent to the opposite party No.1 and the same is being continued under the jurisdiction of the Learned Court.

          That in spite of having acquitted from the aforesaid case, the opposite party is not providing reconnection rather killing time. So, the petitioner is suffering from mental agony and harassment.

           So, he prayed for reconnection of his electric Service and compensation for mental pain, agony, suffering etc.

           At the time of admission hearing, Ld. District Commission found that the complainant with the help of such electric connection, he used to extract ground water for irrigation or domestic purpose without permission of resources management authority and the complainant had no local standi to raise dispute before the consumer court rather than to move the redressed authority under the provision of electricity Act.

          Therefore, Ld. Forum has rejected the consumer complaint at admission stage.

          Being aggrieved with that order this appeal follows.

           In Memo of appeal the complainant/appellant contended that the Ld. D.C.D.R.C., Malda before passing the order should have held that the respondent had lodged a complaint against the appellant u/s 135(1)(b)(c) of the Electricity Act 2003 and the said case was hotly contested amongst the respective parties and finally from that case the appellant have been acquitted and the consumer ship in between the parties herein are still exists.

 For that the Ld. D.C.D.R.C., Malda should have held that the appellant is a consumer of the respondent which come within the preview of C.P. Act.

 For that the regard being have to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. D.C.D.R.C., Malda should have admit the case of the appellant as per his claim.

   For that the order of the Ld. D.C.D.R.C., Malda is otherwise bad and is liable to be set aside.  

  The appeal was admitted in due course. Notice was sent to the respondent/WBSEDRC who has contested the case by filing WNA.

 Ld. Advocate Mr. D. Bhowmik has represented the appellant while Ld. Advocate Mr. Ashim Chakrabarty has conducted the hearing on behalf of respondents.

                                                         Decision with reasons

 Admitted position, the appellant is a customer of WBSEDRC having electric connection at his land for the purpose of running submersible pump to extract ground water form the earth for the purpose of irrigation.

 According to the case of the Respondents, the said electric connection was dismantled by the WBSEDRC authority on allegation that during visit on 23.07.2018 at about 14:30 hours. Arka Basak, Assistant Engineer (E) & Station Manager malatipur Customer Care Centre along with Sri Tapas Karmakar (22 years) S/O Shri Nemai Karmakar, Sub-Assistant Engineer(E) Malatipur CCC and Sri Swarnendu Ray (28 years) S/O Sunirmal Ray, Office Executive Malatipur CCC of WBSEDCL along with few outsourced agency's employees, visited the agricultural pump-set of Zakir C/O Lal Mohammad and found that the three phase energy meter was burnt and the appellant Zakir was consuming electricity by directly bypassing one phase of the said burnt energy meter using jointed single core PVC cable against consumer ID 301466851. They also found that there were joints in the incoming service cable in all the three phases which clearly portrayed that the appellant Zakir had committed theft of electricity by bypassing all the three phases of the energy meter.

          Ld. advocate of the respondent during the course of hearing mentioned that the complainant by passing one phase the burnt energy meter, was consuming electricity this tantamount to theft of electricity by bypassing the said energy meter and it's an offence under section 135(1)(b) and 135(1) (c) of the Electricity Act 2003, read with amendment of 2007 It is worthy to be mentioned that Zakir C/O Lal Mohammad was absent during our inspection at that site but his electric meter was using electricity to run an agricultural pump-set of 6 KW. And as the accused person Zakir C/O Lal Mohammad has committed offence under section 135(1 (b) and (c) of the Electricity Act 2003, read with amendment of 2007, Arka Basak, Assistant Engineer (E) & Station Manager malatipur Customer Care Centre seized the following articles in presence of the following witnesses who signed in the seizure list. The accused person Zakir C/O Lal Mohammad was absent during the search and one local villager was present but he refused to sign in the seizure list. Hence the seizure list, prepared by Arka Basak, Assistant Engineer (E) & Station Manager malatipur Customer Care Centre at site has been signed by the employees accompanying them in the raid program.

    He further argues pertinent to be mentioned here that Arka Basak, Assistant Engineer (E) & Station Manager malatipur Customer Care Centre disconnected the unauthorized connection on the same day (i.e., on 23rd of July, 2018).

 That on the basis of complaint one specific Case Being 482/18 Dated 23.07.18 under section 135(1) (b) and 135 (1) (c) of the Electricity Act 2003 and subsequently the said case was charge sheeted and accused Zakir face the trial and subsequently he was acquitted from the said case.

That on the very next day i.e., on 24th of July, 2018 one Provisional Assessment order was sent to the Appellant Zakir with one enclosure Provisional Assessment Bill by the Assessing Officer & station manager Malatipur CCC informing about his unauthorized use of electricity as such the Assessing Officer & station manager Malatipur assessed to the best of his Judgement the electricity charges in accordance with Section 126 (5) & (6) of the Electricity Act 2003. The amount provisionally assessed is Rs. 3,75,529.00 (Rupees Three lakh Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Nine)only and the appellant Zakir was given the time period of 01.08.2018 to either accept such assessment and deposit the Assessed amount to the office of the undersigned or if he do not want to deposit the assessed amount he was entitled to file objection before the undersigned against the provisional assessment within 15 days that is on or before 10.08.2018 but the Appellant Zakir was failed to complete any of the options and the Appellant Zakir neither appear before the any appropriate authority of the jurisdiction of this case nor he paid any Assessment Bill thereafter on 02.08.2018 the assessing officer sent intimation Being Memo No MLP/SM/Final Hearing/1243 Dated 02.08.2018 and Mr. Zakir was asked to appearing for final hearing for assessment of final assessment bill for the FIR lodged against him for pilferage of energy on 11.08.2018 at 11.30 hours in the chamber of station manager Malatipur ccc with all relevant documents and on 16.08.2018 final assessment order of Rs.2,93,331-00 was assessed by the assessing officer and said order also received by the appellant Mr. Zakir on 17.08.2018 and in the said order the appellant was given an opportunity in terms of Section 127 of Electricity Act 2003 read with amendment of 2007 that if the appellant is aggrieved with the final assessment order, he may deposit 50% of the assessed amount within 30 days from the service of said order and place his appeal before the appellate authority in the address mentioned in the said order but the appellant did not file any appeal before the assessing officer or he did not deposit the 50% of the assessed amount within 30 days from the service of said order, but the appellant went to Ld. District consumer redressal commission, Malda and filed a Case Being No-CC/9/2021 of D.C.D.R.C, District- Malda against the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited i.e. Respondent No. 1 to 3 for getting his relief.

 That it is self-admitted by the appellant Zakir with his request letter dated 26.08.2018 addressing to the WBSEDCL (Malda) that hooking was done in his absent and he categorically admitted the said fact and in the said letter he requested the officer concern not to impose any fine and he stated to him that he will not be able to pay the amount of Rs.3,75,529.00 (Rupees Three lakh Seventy-Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Nine) only and he requested for reconnection.

That after the acquittal the appellant went to the Electricity Board with a prayer for reconnection of service connection but the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Le Respondent No. 1 to 3 did not give the reconnection on the ground for payment of final assessment amount for which the appellant went to Ld. District consumer redressal commission, Malda and filed a Case Being No-CC/9/2021 of D.C.D.R.C, District Malda against the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Le Respondent No. 1 to 3for getting his relief.

Ld. District consumer redressal commission, Malda pleased to hold that the appellant was running submersible pump for the irrigation purpose. According to the provision of West Bengal Ground Water Resources (Management, Control and Regulation Act, 2005) that u/s. 7 of the said act no user shall sink any well for extracting or using ground water without obtaining permit issued by the State Level Authority or District Level Authority. The Section further provides that "Where any user extracting or using ground water for imgation or domestic purpose sink any tube-well or hand-pump permission is also required but no permission required for extraction or use is made without the help of any mechanical or electrical device that can be done without obtaining the permit from the concerned Authority.

For the instant case it is found that the complainant was extracting water with the help of electric devices or any mechanical way as such permission is required from the authority. But no such permission has been filed by the complainant

 Ld. District consumer redressal commission, Malda pleased to hold that there is a dispute as regards to the bill in view of the case law decided by the Hon'ble State Commission Divisional Engineer and Divisional Manager Dakshin Dinajpur Vs. ht. Smt. Asha Das when there is a dispute as regards to amount of bill the complainant will have to move before West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission.

 That the above appeal is not maintainable both in facts and in Law against the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited i.e. Respondent No. 1 to 3 and in terms of Section 145 of The Electricity Act 2003-No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act

The west Bengal state electricity distribution company limited i.e. respondent no. 1 to 3 like to submit some precedent i.e., judgements of apex court in this regard:

 Honorable Divisional Bench, High Court, Calcutta (Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice and Joymalyo Bagchi d.) is pleased to pass an order in the matter of Sri Basudeb Paine Vs. WBSEDCL. (Vide MAT no. 263 of 2015 With CAN 2584 of 2015) to the effect that the proceedings under section 135 and 126 of the Electricity Act stand on separate and independent footings as they do not depend on each other. So, acquittal from the charges under section 135 of the Electricity Act will not relieve any person from assessment of consumption of electricity charge as per section 126 of the Electricity Act.

 It is not open to the Consumer Forum to go into the question as to whether there was actually a theft or not and whether the electricity was being unauthorizedly used or not. Once such allegations are made by the service provider, the Consumer Forum must necessarily keep its hands off the complaint and should not enter into the arena of making enquiry into the alleged theft and unauthorized use of electricity. It would be open only to the concerned Court to inquire into such allegations and take an appropriate view on them.

 Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentions that the appellant used to make payment all electric bill for the said meter, regularly. In the middle of 2018, he wants to other district for his occupation connection was dismantled. He prayed for reconnection and made payment of dues of electric bill to the tune of Rs. 28500/- an 17.07.2018 and reconnection charge. The authority concerned could complete the process of reconnection of the electric line on 17.07.2018.

 Subsequently, the incident happened on 23.07.2018 and the theft case against the appellant was registered that the said case being electricity case No.436/2018 against the petitioner was finally heard on 21.11.2020 whereby the Learned Judge Special, 1 Court, Malda was pleased to pass an order interalia as follows:

  “That the accused Zakir in Electricity Case No.436/2018 is found not guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 135(1)(b)/135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and he is thereby acquitted u/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

  In view of Section 437A, Cr.P.C. the accused person shall stand discharged from his bail bond after expiry of six months from this date.

The seized elements, if any, be preserved till the appeal period is over then be confiscated to the state".

After hearing both sides, it has become crystal clear, that if there is established that if any consumer of electricity tampers a meter or damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment or any electric devices used electricity in authorized way, he is liable to be prosecuted U/S 135 of electricity Act,2013 and as per provision of Sec 126 of the said Act, the assessment officer shall asses the charge payable by such person.

If the said person does not agree with such assessment, he may prefer an appeal to the higher authority U/S 127 of the said Act.

  No civil court shall entertain any suit or proceedings in any matter arises with the provisional assessment U/S 126 Electricity Act.

 But the consumer forum in view of Sec 3 of CP Act, 1986(this case arises within the enforcement of CP Act, 1986), has wide power to entertain a dispute arises with the order of assessing officer U/S 126 electricity it the allegation and prosecutions U/S 135 electricity Act fails to establish.

 Here in this case, the appellant has faced the trial before a SPL. Court U/S 135 electricity act, where he was not found guilty in committing theft of energy and he was acquitted. Since the said acquittal, the legal picture completely changes as the very allegation of pilferage of electricity revenue has completely unproved or disproved.

 The appellant is a small cultivator who he pours water in land for cultivation. No allegation was there from any competent authority of water resource management that he had contravened any provision of relevant Act for not taking appropriate permission.

 So Suo motto observation of Ld. Forum had no basis at all in this score. The electricity connection is now a continuing in disconnect state. The process of cultivation has seriously affected. Our country also has been depriving in getting crops may be very little in volume for such disfunction of water pimp from swallowing water in the field.

 The complainant/appellant as a small farmer is running here and there since 2018 for getting Justice. A considerable period of time has already consumed and no proper solution has yet achieved.

 Inspite of being acquitted in a criminal liability with charges of energy theft, he has been still deprived in getting the re-connection of electricity in his water pump for Agri purpose. We know all the laws and statutes are enacted for the well beings of mankind and humanity as the prime object particularly consumer Act having objects with speedy and flexible remedy.   

 So, the consumer redressal agency in such a state of affairs cannot sit idle.

 A suggestive formula should be invented to make a solution to overcome this present problem.

 Therefore, without interfering with the order of Ld. District Forum, invoking the provision of Sec 14 of CP Act, 1986 this bench pass this following order on disposal of the appeal.

                                                            Hence ordered,

 That the instant appeal is hereby disposed of to the affect, confirming the Final Order of Ld. DCDRC, Malda dated 03.03.2021 in CC. No.9/2021 in contest without cost in finality.

This bench passes the order to the respondents No. 1 & 2, in view of Sec. 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986, to cause immediate re-connection of electricity supply to the Meter of consumer Id No. 30146685 stands with the name of the appellant within 30 days without levying any pilferage bill amount from him immediately. After Re-connection the assessment officer shall Suo motto refer the bill to the appellant authority and appellant authority after hearing the appellant/complainant shall fix the bill amount to be levied from him in easy installments and if the appellant fails to comply the order of appellant authority, the respondents would be entitled again to disconnect the said electricity in due process. If the electricity authority (respondent) does not comply the order of this bench, the complainant/appellant will be at liberty to file a fresh consumer complaint before the District Commission with same cause of action and with same prayers. The delay in that case to be condoned by the Ld. District Commission on the grounds of pending the case at appeal stage.  

          Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the Ld. District Commission Malda also to be communicated with this order.