Both parties file haziras and appear before this Commission. The complainant files one petition and prays for restoration of electricity.

 Heard the Ld. Advocates of both the parties.

It appears from the case record that after filing of this case the complainant file a petition for restoration of electricity as because the O.Ps disconnected the electric line of the complainant with an allegation of theft of electricity. But that petition is rejected by the Commission as it was interim prayer and there was an allegation of theft of electricity and a specific case started under the Electricity Act. Thereafter, this complainant filed similar petitions one after another and all the petitions were turn down. The O.Ps have appeared on 30/09/2021 and on 02/11/2021 he has filed a petition for maintainability of this case. The petition was heard at length. It was the contention of the Ld. Lawyer of the O.Ps that when there is an allegation of theft of electricity this type of case under Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. In this regard he has refer a decision reported in Dr. Laxman Das Bansal -Vs- Executive Engineer (O.P) Division Dakhsin Hariyana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2012 (1) CPR 25 (NC). In reply Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the O.Ps did not file the written version within the 45 days and he has write to say anything regarding maintainability of this case before this Commission as because his write has been ceased due to non-filing of written version within time.

            After hearing both the parties an also perusal of the case record we find that the O.Ps appeared before this Commission on 30.09.2021 and the statutory period for filing written version within 45 days i.e. on 15/11/2021.  On 02/11/2021 the O.Ps file this petition for maintainability of this case. It is fact that the O.Ps did not file the W.V. till date and 45 days has already been expired. The complainant files some Xerox copy of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which reveals that this Commission has no jurisdiction to take action if the W.V.  is file after 45 days. But the full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court Headed by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and others in Suo-Motu writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 along with other petition given direction that due to the pandemic of Covid situation the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or specific laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. The consumer protection act is a special law and it is a judicial / quasi judicial proceeding. This direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is very much binding upon this case of this Commission. In terms of the said direction the non-filing of W.V. by the O.Ps within 45 days after 30/09/2021 is not to be calculated and it will be calculated after 01/03/2022 as per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court.  So, the contention of the complainant regarding locus-standi of the O.Ps after 45 days from 30/09/2021is not applicable here as because we find that according to the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court the O.P has the locus-standi to file the maintainable petition after expiry of 45 days for non-filing of W.V. The O.Ps have right to file the petition for non-maintainable of this case is very much there for which the petition has accepted for hearing.

            In this case it is fact that there is allegation of hooking of electricity against the complainant. It is an admitted position that a specific criminal case for theft of electricity has been filed against the complainant before the Special Court and in that case the complainant has been granted bail and the said case is still pending. Now, the question is when a specific theft case of electricity is pending against the complainant then the Consumer Commission has any jurisdiction to entertain the case u/s. 35 of C.P. Act 2019. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case law U.P. Power Corporation Limited –Vs- Anis Ahmed (2013)8 SCC 491: AIR 2013 SC 2766 has opined that “Civil Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a suit in respect to the decision of assessing officer u/s. 126 or with respect to a decision of the Appellate Authority u/s. 127 is barred u/s. 145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by a assessing officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ is a quasi-judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of ‘Consumer Dispute’ u/s. 2(1) (e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted u/s. 153 of Electricity Act, 2003, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under sections 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum.”

In another case law reported in 2012 (1) CPR 25 (NC) has supplied by the O.Ps the Hon’ble National Commission opined that a consumer who commits theft of energy by deceitful illegal means by tempering with the meter can not claim any benefit under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the O.Ps. Here in this case we find that there is an allegation of theft of electricity’s and the specific case of electricity act against the complainant is pending before the Special Court and the complainant has been enlarged of bail in that case so at this stage according to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court the case before this Commission is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this case before disposal of the criminal case.

So, we are the opinion that as there is a specific theft of electricity is pending against this complainant and then according to the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the National Commission this case is not maintainable before this Commission according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

              Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-

                                                     Ordered

that the instant case be and the same is not maintainable according to law and then dismissed on contest without costs.