The misuse of Section 135 in electricity cases is a growing concern across India. Junior engineer Mr Sharma misused Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 to pursue ulterior motives. He exploited the legal framework meant to regulate electricity theft and safeguard consumers’ interests.
As a result, his actions undermined the integrity of the system and placed significant financial burdens on innocent citizens who had no part in his deceptive practices.
Furthermore, he manipulated this section for personal gain. In doing so, he jeopardised public trust in the regulatory bodies that ensure fair and equitable access to electricity. This caused widespread discontent and confusion among those affected by his unscrupulous behaviour.

---

Title: Misuse of Section 135 in Electricity Cases: A Citizen’s Fight Against Arbitrary Allegations

Introduction

On 13th January 2025, Loknath Yadav submitted a grievance to the Government of Uttar Pradesh on a matter of utmost importance and urgency. He registered the complaint under number GOVUP/E/2025/0004303.
In his grievance, he raised serious concerns about the electricity department’s arbitrary and unconstitutional actions. Specifically, these actions undermine consumer rights and erode trust in governmental institutions. The complaint concerns the misuse of Section 135 in electricity cases — specifically, its misapplication in cases involving theft of electricity.
Moreover, Mr Yadav provided detailed evidence showing how the department’s practices unfairly penalised honest consumers. He highlighted the dire consequences of such misconduct on individuals and families who depend on reliable electricity services.

Background of the Allegation

According to the department’s junior engineer (JE), the applicants committed a serious violation under Clause (a) of Section 135 by engaging in electricity theft. (Misuse of Section 135)
Specifically, the allegations state that they used a two-core black cable to illegally draw electricity from the main supply. In doing so, they bypassed the legal processes that ordinary citizens follow.
Due to the severity of the offence, notices were served following their fraudulent activities.
In fact, the cable belongs to a legitimate connection holder. This suggests the incident may not be a simple act of theft. Rather, it could be part of a well-planned conspiracy to undermine the utility’s operations and exploit the system for personal gain.
Therefore, the implications of such actions extend beyond simple theft. They point to a larger issue of organised electricity fraud that the department must now address with utmost seriousness.

Nonetheless, the complainant strongly refutes these allegations, stating that:

• The cable in question belongs to Tarak Nath Yadav, a legitimate connection holder.
• The department itself provided the connection details of Tarak Nath Yadav, including his account number and outstanding dues.
• The applicants are not the connection holders, and therefore, a junior engineer can’t hold them liable for any alleged theft.

Previous Grievance Reference (Misuse of Section 135)

Previously, the complainant raised this issue under grievance number GOVUP/E/2024/0095090. In that instance, the department repeated the same allegations without presenting any substantial evidence.
Furthermore, the complainant argues that the executive engineer submitted a misleading report. This report misrepresents the facts and implicates innocent individuals who had no involvement in the matter.
Notably, this lack of accountability is alarming. The report fails to address the actual connection holder and leaves critical information unexamined.
As a result, it raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation process and whether the department is truly committed to uncovering the truth.
Indeed, the repercussions of such misleading documentation extend beyond the individuals named. They risk undermining public trust in the department’s actions and decisions going forward.

Legal and Ethical Concerns (Misuse of Section 135)

The complainant raises several critical questions:

1. Can a junior engineer register a case against non-connection holders? Is it legal based solely on the presence of a cable linked to someone else’s connection?
2. Is it lawful for the department to disconnect a legitimate connection? Can they file a First Information Report (FIR) against unrelated individuals?
3. Why , the burden of proof shifted to the applicants? The department itself has the records of the connection holder.
4. Is this a new practice by the electricity department to harass citizens through the misuse of Section 135 in electricity cases?

Reminder and Clarification

A reminder was issued on the same day, emphasising that:

• The JE’s actions are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and promote departmental anarchy.
• Such practices are incompatible with the principles of good governance.
• The department disconnected Tarak Nath Yadav’s connection without following due process, and then unjustly targeted the applicants.

Current Status

The grievance, as of now, is marked as “Grievance Received”. The concerned authority has forwarded it online to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Lucknow. Consequently, the complainant seeks a fair investigation and demands that the older person be held accountable if any theft is proven.

• They must exonerate the applicants from false charges.
• The department must adhere to the rule of law and stop harassing innocent citizens.

Conclusion (Misuse of Section 135)

Overall, this case highlights a disturbing trend of the misuse of Section 135 in electricity cases. Public authorities exploit legal provisions, raising significant concerns about the integrity of our legal system.
To clarify, Section 135 of the Electricity Act was originally designed to prevent actual theft. It serves as a safeguard for utility companies against fraudulent activities.
However, the misuse of Section 135 in electricity cases is becoming increasingly common, with authorities exploiting this provision indiscriminately against individuals, often without proper evidence or adequate justification.
Consequently, such actions undermine community trust and infringe on the rights of innocent citizens. These citizens may find themselves embroiled in legal battles without any cause. The complainant’s plea is a call for justice, transparency, and accountability. It urges a reevaluation of practices that permit the arbitrary exercise of power. Above all, it highlights the need for strict checks on authority to ensure that justice is upheld for all citizens. If such arbitrary actions continue unchecked, they will erode public trust and undermine the very foundations of citizen-centric governance.

An appeal was submitted against the arbitrary action of