High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Shanker Gupta v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation And Others - WRIT - C No. 24115 of 2006  RD-AH 8811 (2 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24115 of 2006
Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. U.P. Power Corporation and others
Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the contesting respondents and perused the record.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 17.3.2006 (annexure-2 to the writ petition) which indicates two theft assessments - (i) Theft assessment = Rs.2,02,599.00 and (ii) Compounding fees balance = Rs.85,000.00. The said document also shows that total compounding fee sought to be charged against the petitioner is Rs.1,60,000/- whereas the petitioner has already paid Rs.75,000/- vide receipt No.30/110790 dated 14.2.2006. On that basis balance of Rs.85,000/- has been shown towards compounding fee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 152 of Electricity Act, 2003, which contemplates that an appropriate Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf may accept from any consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, a sum of money by way of compounding of the offence as specified in the Table contained in that Section. In the instant case, the power connection is a commercial connection and the load in question is 7.5 kilowatt, on that basis maximum Rs.75,000/- is payable for compounding. Prima facie, we find that contention of the petitioner appears to be correct and there shall be no balance as shown in the said order dated 17.3.2006 (annexure-2 to the writ petition).
As far as the question of assessment on the basis of inspection and theft is concerned, learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that the same is contemplated under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 and a form is provided for deciding the dispute under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. In that view of the matter we direct the petitioner to seek remedy by way of filing objections under the Code, 2005. The petitioner has got no alternative efficacious remedy. Since the petitioner is directed to avail his alternative remedy, we further direct that balance amount of compounding fee indicated in the order dated 17.3.2006 (annexure-2 to the writ petition) shall not be recovered from the petitioner unless the objection of the petitioner is noted above is also not considered by a reasoned order.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy subject to the observations made above.
May 2, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.