The Madras high court on taking strong exception to the practice of the electricity department striking a compromise with those indulging in power theft has directed the energy secretary to file a detailed report in this regard.
Madras High Court
Chennai:
Condemning such a move, Justice Subramaniam observed that like gold or any other object being robbed, theft of power is also an offence and hence criminal action must be taken against the offender.
Noting that any theft is a criminal act, the judge wondered as to how the electricity department can resort to settling a criminal issue with initiating police action against the offender. However, in response to pointed questions raised by the judge as to who monitors such power thefts and who settles the issue with the offenders, the counsel pointed out that the task of arriving at a settlement rests with the Assistant Executive Engineer.
To this, Justice Subramaniam on wondering whether an industry which had indulged in a power theft of Rs. 5 Crore would be allowed to go scot-free by merely paying Rs.5 Crore, sought to know as to why the department failed to file a police complaint against the offender and instead allowed an engineer to settle the issue amicably.
Further, observing as to how the electricity department can function profitably with it providing concession to power thefts, the judge also noted that if the Assistant Executive Engineer was the points person in holding talks with such power thieves what was the guarantee that corruption would not play a role in fixing the quantum of thefts since at the end of the day they only have to pay charges for just 50 per cent of the power robbed.
Also, raising a volley of questions in this regard, Justice Subramaniam directed to State energy secretary and other senior officials to file a detailed affidavit about the way power theft in the State is being handled. Also, appointing special government plea pleader Thambidurai as amicus to assist the court, the judge then posted the plea to February 28 for further hearing.
Justice S M Subramaniam before whom a case relating to power theft came up on Tuesday, was shocked by the submission made by the counsel appearing for the department that instances of power theft are usually settled with 50 per cent of the charges being collected from the offender.
Condemning such a move, Justice Subramaniam observed that like gold or any other object being robbed, theft of power is also an offence and hence criminal action must be taken against the offender.
Noting that any theft is a criminal act, the judge wondered as to how the electricity department can resort to settling a criminal issue with initiating police action against the offender. However, in response to pointed questions raised by the judge as to who monitors such power thefts and who settles the issue with the offenders, the counsel pointed out that the task of arriving at a settlement rests with the Assistant Executive Engineer.
To this, Justice Subramaniam on wondering whether an industry which had indulged in a power theft of Rs. 5 Crore would be allowed to go scot-free by merely paying Rs.5 Crore, sought to know as to why the department failed to file a police complaint against the offender and instead allowed an engineer to settle the issue amicably.
Further, observing as to how the electricity department can function profitably with it providing concession to power thefts, the judge also noted that if the Assistant Executive Engineer was the points person in holding talks with such power thieves what was the guarantee that corruption would not play a role in fixing the quantum of thefts since at the end of the day they only have to pay charges for just 50 per cent of the power robbed.
Also, raising a volley of questions in this regard, Justice Subramaniam directed to State energy secretary and other senior officials to file a detailed affidavit about the way power theft in the State is being handled. Also, appointing special government plea pleader Thambidurai as amicus to assist the court, the judge then posted the plea to February 28 for further hearing.