Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"when the Special Court is very well empowered to determine the civil liability apart from taking any penal action against the person who has committed theft of energy, the authorities could not have usurped such powers" Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that electricity authorities have no jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of a consumer for the theft of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that such power is exclusively vested with the Special Court under Section 154 of the Act, declaring that statutory authorities cannot usurp judicial powers to unilaterally raise demand notices.

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an order dated December 19, 2023, passed by the Officer In-charge of MPMKVVCL, O&M Circle Guna. Through the impugned order, the electricity authority invoked Section 135 of the Electricity Act to unilaterally fix a civil liability of Rs. 1,16,734 against the petitioner for alleged energy theft. The petitioner was subsequently directed to deposit the assessed amount, prompting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The primary question before the court was whether electricity authorities possess the statutory power to independently determine and impose civil liability on a consumer for energy theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The court was also called upon to determine the specific scope of jurisdiction granted to Special Courts in assessing such monetary liability under Section 154 of the Act.

Statutory Scheme Governs Theft Of Energy

Analyzing the statutory framework of the Electricity Act, 2003, the court observed that Section 135 falls under Chapter XIV, which explicitly deals with "Offences and Penalties" relating to the theft of electricity. The bench noted that the legislature has devised a specific mechanism for addressing such penal provisions, ensuring that consumers are subjected to a proper judicial process rather than arbitrary executive action.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The Special Court

The court drew attention to Section 154 of the Act, which establishes the procedure and powers of the Special Court constituted under Section 153. It was highlighted by the bench that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under Section 135 is strictly triable by this designated Special Court.

Power To Assess Liability Rests With Judiciary

Expanding on the scope of judicial powers, the bench emphasized that sub-section (5) of Section 154 explicitly empowers the Special Court to assess the monetary implications of energy theft. The judge observed that the Special Court is uniquely authorized "to determine even the civil liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy as per the said sub section, where the cognizance is taken of the act under Section 135."

Authorities Cannot Usurp Judicial Powers

Coming down heavily on the electricity department's practice of directly assessing and demanding theft amounts, the court ruled that the statutory authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction. The bench categorically stated that the executive body had improperly assumed the role of the Special Court by unilaterally assessing the sum of Rs. 1,16,734 towards the alleged theft.

"the authorities could not have usurped such powers and could not had determined the liability and could not have raised a demand of Rs.1,16,734/-"

Reliance On Precedent

To fortify its legal reasoning, the High Court placed reliance on the coordinate bench's decision in the matter of Sangita wd/o Suresh Chandra Gupta and Another Vs. State of M.P. [2009(1) MPLJ 366]. The court noted that the legal analogy establishing the exclusive domain of the Special Court to ascertain civil liability in energy theft cases has been well-settled in previous jurisprudential pronouncements.

In light of the factual and legal position, the High Court quashed the final assessment order dated December 19, 2023, declaring it bad in law since it could not be sustained. However, the court granted liberty to the respondent electricity authorities to move an appropriate application before the Competent Court of jurisdiction as provided under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby allowing the writ petition and disposing of the matter.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026