Personnel from the Department of Electricity commonly misuse Section 135 in UP. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 serves as a crucial tool for these personnel to prevent electricity theft and ensure compliance with regulations. However, more often than not, they fail to exercise the necessary discretion and thorough scrutiny during implementation, which consequently results in numerous complaints from consumers. As a result, many individuals find themselves wrongfully accused and face penalties without adequate investigation. This troubling situation underscores the urgent need for both oversight and proper training within the department, ensuring that they exercise such powers fairly and justly, thereby protecting consumers’ rights.

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

1. Alleged Misuse of Section 135

Department officials allegedly weaponize Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which objective is to penalize electricity theft. Instead of curbing theft, they use it as a tool for administrative harassment and to frame innocent individuals.

2. Identifying and Performing Due Diligence Failures

The core of the dispute stems from a misidentification of property. The complainant claims 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 different individuals (Loknath and Kedar Nath Yadav) face charges as stated in the FIR registered.

3. Deliberate Official Misconduct

Specific allegations suggest a conspiracy involving Junior Engineer (JE) Kisan Lal. Moreover, the grievance claims that someone intentionally disconnected a person’s line to create a false criminal record for others, thereby 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 describes its responses as: (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

• Inconsistent: Reports contradict the physical facts of the case.
• Arbitrary: Accusers claim that officials “run 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 (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

The local department’s reports appear biased and protective of their own staff; consequently, this prompted the escalation of the matter to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. In response, they demand 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. Specifically, based on the grievances filed by Mr. Loknath Yadav, it appears there are serious allegations of procedural misuse. Furthermore, there are indications of 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, citizens in Uttar Pradesh have noticed a troubling pattern in how authorities enforce electricity theft laws. While Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeks to curb illegal power abstraction, individuals like Loknath Yadav claim that the law serves as a tool for harassment and administrative tyranny instead of delivering justice.(Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

1. Understanding Section 135: The Legal Framework (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

Section 135 serves as a stringent provision designed to penalize “Theft of Electricity.” It targets 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: Use 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: (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

• False Implication: The FIR alleges that a third party conspired with the Junior Engineer.
• Evidence Misidentification: Initially, the authorities misidentify the “black two-core cable” as evidence of theft, asserting that it belongs to a valid connection holder. Consequently, they utilized this cable to frame the applicants for unauthorized consumption.
• Inconsistent Reporting: Despite filing multiple grievances since December 2024, the department’s reports show accusations 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, such as Junior Engineers, undeniably creates a climate of fear for “innocent and gullible people.” Therefore, to restore integrity, the following must occur: (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

• Independent Inquiry: Furthermore, a transparent investigation into the conduct of JE Kisan Lal and the validity of the FIRs filed under his jurisdiction is essential.
• 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 (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

Law enforcement should be a shield for the state’s resources; however, it should not be a sword used by officials to settle personal or corrupt agendas. Indeed, the case of Loknath Yadav serves as 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 not only essential for follow-up but also crucial for effective legal tracking.

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

---

1. Primary Administrative Authority (Chief Minister’s Secretariat) (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

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 (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

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) (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

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 (Misuse of Section 135 in UP)

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, it is crucial to specifically mention that the “Action Taken Report” from the previous grievances, which can be found here (2024/0095090), was, in fact, factually incorrect concerning 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?