Assuring that the Electricity Act of 2003 or its provisions would not act as a hurdle to a final “financial settlement” between an accused and a power firm, Justice S K Kaul observed: “The object of the Act is to deter theft of electricity, but at the same time encourage settlements where the revenue aspect stands satisfied.”

In many cases of power theft, when the “disputed amounts” are deposited, the electricity company concerned is not interested in further prosecution. The prerogative is with the company especially after the privatisation of power in the Capital, the court noted.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by the NDPL, challenging an Electricity Court order of February 8, earlier this year, against a two-year-old official circular, delegating powers to an in-house panel for settling power theft cases, provided the accused persons paid “100 per cent of the billed amount”.

The lower court had taken exception to the circular on grounds that it was issued in complete disregard of the 2003 Act and was thus invalid as far as the law was concerned.

Justice Kaul, however, went on to dismiss the special electricity judge’s order by noting that the circular was outside the purview of the 2003 Act, as it was “internal” in nature and authored by a private company.

“The internal circular was issued by an electricity company now privatised and not a government order, which is under a statute or a provision of the law,” the bench pointed out.