Asian Udyog v. North Delhi Power Ltd

(2008) DLT 56 (DB) has held that the Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes pertaining to dishonest abstraction of energy. The relevant portion ofthe aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "22. It is apparent that the cases oftheft under Section 135(1) involve mens rea. The jurisdiction ofcivil Court is not barred but the power to try offences punishable under Sections 135 to 139 is conferred exclusively on the Special Court constituted under Section 153 ofthe Act and the provisions ofSub-section (5) of Section 154 specifically invest Special Court with the jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability in theft cases whether or not the allegation oftheft is disputed, is still entitled to make such a challenge to the disputed bill before the Special Court, even in cases where no criminal complaint is filed against the consumer and the amount ofcivil liability so determined shall be recovered as ifit were a decree ofa civil Court and it can act as civil Court as well as criminal Court while conducting the cases before it.

XXX XXX XXX

30. Although there is no specific provision in Section 145 ofthe Actfor exclusion ofjurisdiction ofCivil Court to entertain any proceeding in respect ofany matter which the Special Court is empowered by or under the Act to determine, we are of the view that any dispute about civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excludedfrom the jurisdiction ofcivil Court in view of the provisions of Sections 153 and 154 of the Ac:t wherein special court has got thejurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability specifically in theft cases and the said Court can act as civil Court as well as criminal Court while conducting the cases before it. " Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have an alternate effective remedy to challenge the I I r1i} \[~:! speaking orders, show cause notices, inspection reports as well as demands issued by the respondent. Consequently, present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to avail the remedy before the Special Court, if they so desires within a period of six weeks. In the interest ofjustice, it is directed that the time spent in prosecuting the present petitions would not be taken into account while calculating the period of limitation for the new proceedings to be filed by the petitioners before the Special Court. Needless to say, all the rights and·contentions ofall the parties are left open and the Special Court shall decide the matters finally without being influenced by any observation made by this Court.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 JS