Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the grievance and the structured blog post:

1. Alleged Misuse of Section 135

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is intended to penalize electricity theft, is allegedly being weaponized by department officials. Instead of curbing theft, it is being used as a tool for administrative harassment and to frame innocent individuals.

2. Failure of Identification and Due Diligence

The core of the dispute lies in a misidentification of property. The complainant asserts that the physical evidence used to justify the theft charge—a black two-core cable—actually belongs to a legal connection holder (Tarak Nath Yadav), yet the FIR was registered against different individuals (Loknath and Kedar Nath Yadav).

3. Deliberate Official Misconduct

There are specific allegations of a conspiracy involving Junior Engineer (JE) Kisan Lal. The grievance suggests that the disconnection of one person’s line was intentionally used to create a false criminal record for others, pointing toward deep-rooted corruption at the feeder level.

4. Bureaucratic “Apathy” in Redressal

Despite multiple filings on the Jansunwai and PG Portals (dating back to late 2024), the department’s responses are described as:

• Inconsistent: Reports contradict the physical facts of the case.
• Arbitrary: Officials are accused of “running away” from the issue by using flimsy technicalities.
• Defensive: The department suggested the victim file a new complaint against the JE rather than addressing the evidence presented in the existing grievance.

5. Call for Higher-Level Intervention

Because the local department’s reports are viewed as biased and protective of their own staff, the matter has been escalated to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. The takeaway is a demand for a transparent, third-party inquiry that holds field officers accountable for the “tyranny” of their actions.

This situation highlights a significant concern regarding the administrative application of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Based on the grievances filed by Mr. Loknath Yadav, it appears there are serious allegations of procedural misuse and targeted harassment by officials in Uttar Pradesh.

Below is a structured breakdown of the issue, formatted as a blog post to highlight the core legal and administrative discrepancies.

---

The Weaponization of Section 135: Allegations of Corruption in UP’s Electricity Department

In recent months, a troubling pattern has emerged regarding the enforcement of electricity theft laws in Uttar Pradesh. While Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is designed to curb the illegal abstraction of power, reports from citizens like Loknath Yadav suggest that the law is being used as a tool for harassment and administrative tyranny rather than justice.

1. Understanding Section 135: The Legal Framework

Section 135 is a stringent provision intended to penalize “Theft of Electricity.” It covers various dishonest acts, including:

• Direct Tapping: Making unauthorized connections to overhead or underground lines.
• Meter Tampering: Using devices to interfere with accurate meter readings.
• Unauthorized Use: Using electricity for purposes other than what was authorized.

The penalty is severe, involving up to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both. Because the stakes are so high, the law demands a transparent and evidence-based approach to enforcement.

2. The Case of Loknath Yadav: A Mockery of Due Process

The grievance filed under registration GOVUP/E/2025/0039255 brings to light a specific instance of alleged official misconduct. The complainant asserts that Junior Engineer (JE) Kisan Lal (Hargarh Feeder) disconnected the cable of one individual (Tarak Nath Yadav) but intentionally registered a First Information Report (FIR) against others (Loknath Yadav and Kedar Nath Yadav).

Core Allegations:

• False Implication: The FIR is alleged to be the result of a conspiracy between a third party and the Junior Engineer.
• Evidence Misidentification: The “black two-core cable” cited as evidence of theft reportedly belongs to a valid connection holder, yet it was used to frame the applicants for unauthorized consumption.
• Inconsistent Reporting: Despite multiple grievances filed since December 2024, the department’s reports are accused of being “inconsistent” and “arbitrary.”

3. Administrative Failure and the “Flimsy Ground” Defense

A recurring theme in these grievances is the dismissive nature of the official responses. When victims of alleged corruption seek redress through the Jansunwai Portal or the PG Portal, they are often met with bureaucratic circularity.

The complainant notes that officials have suggested filing a separate complaint against the Junior Engineer if they have a “grudge,” effectively ignoring that the current grievance is the formal representation against the JE’s arbitrary treatment. This “running away from the matter on flimsy grounds” undermines public trust in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Electricity Department.

4. The Need for Accountability and Transparency

The misuse of power by field-level officers like Junior Engineers creates a climate of fear for “innocent and gullible people.” To restore integrity, the following must occur:

• Independent Inquiry: A transparent investigation into the conduct of JE Kisan Lal and the validity of the FIRs filed under his jurisdiction.
• Evidence Verification: Verification of whether the cables seized actually belong to legitimate connection holders before theft charges are leveled.
• Strict Action against Corruption: If the charges are found to be fabricated, the concerned officers must face disciplinary action to deter the future misuse of Section 135.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Justice

Law enforcement should be a shield for the state’s resources, not a sword used by officials to settle personal or corrupt agendas. The case of Loknath Yadav is a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh government’s commitment to “zero tolerance” for corruption.

For a case as critical as the misuse of Section 135, having direct access to the relevant authorities is essential for follow-up and legal tracking.

Below are the consolidated contact details, application tracking links, and official touchpoints based on your grievance records and current administrative directories.

---

1. Primary Administrative Authority (Chief Minister’s Secretariat)

Since your latest grievance is forwarded to the Joint Secretary at the CM Office, use these details for formal correspondence or to request a personal hearing.

Detail	Information
Officer Name	Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)
Office Address	Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lok Bhawan, Lucknow
Contact Number	0522-2226350 / 0522-2226354
Official Email	arvind.12574@gov.in or jansunwai-up@gov.in
Website	upcmo.up.nic.in

2. Grievance Tracking & Portals

You can track the progress of your specific application numbers using the links below.

• Jansunwai (IGRS UP) Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Required: Complaint Number and Mobile Number.
• Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS): pgportal.gov.in
• Application IDs for your reference:
  • GOVUP/E/2025/0039255 (Active)
  • GOVUP/E/2025/0004303 (Past Reference)
  • GOVUP/E/2024/0095090 (Past Reference)

---

3. Department of Electricity (UPPCL / PuVVNL)

Since the matter involves the Hargarh Feeder, it falls under the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (PuVVNL). If you need to escalate beyond the Junior Engineer to his superiors (Executive Engineer/Superintending Engineer):

• PuVVNL Headquarters (Varanasi): * Managing Director Email:md@puvvnl.in
  • Helpline Number: 1912 or 1800-180-5025
• CGRF (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum): * If the department’s internal inquiry is unsatisfactory, you can file a formal case at the CGRF UPPCL Portal.
• Vigilance Team (To report JE Kisan Lal’s conduct):
  • Bijli Mitra (Theft/Corruption Reporting): uppcl.org/uppcl/en/page/bijli-mitra

---

4. Direct Action Step: The “Reminder” Tool

Under the Jansunwai system, if an officer (like the Joint Secretary) does not provide a satisfactory or timely resolution, you can use the “Send Reminder” feature on the portal.

Note: When sending a reminder for GOVUP/E/2025/0039255, specifically mention that the “Action Taken Report” from the previous grievances (2024/0095090) was factually incorrect regarding the ownership of the cable.

Would you like me to draft a specific email to the Joint Secretary (arvind.12574@gov.in) that highlights the contradiction in the JE’s report?