High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. U.P.S.E.B. And Ors. - WRIT - C No. 44630 of 1992  RD-AH 393 (22 October 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 44630 OF 1992
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Aligarh ------ Petitioner
U.P.State Electricity Board & ors. ------ Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J
Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.
(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.10.1992 (Annex. 12) and the bills dated 26.3.1991 (Annex. 5) and restraining the respondents from making recovery in pursuance of the aforesaid bills.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Aligarh (hereinafter called the Mandi Samiti), which is a statutory body, constituted under the U.P.Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, was alleged to have committed theft of electricity using the tube-well for supply of water. Hence, the aforesaid orders were passed.
The order dated 24.10.1992 is nothing but a judgment in the course of the assessment of the bills against the theft detected by the checking party in the electricity connections of the petitioner, and the judgment deals with the theft at a great deal. Regarding the finding of fact that it cannot be a case of pilferage, is a clear-cut case of electricity theft by the petitioner. The electricity connections of the petitioners had been checked in presence of their representative, namely, Shri N.L.Gautam. However, Shri Gautam had refused to sign on the checking report. In the capacity of an electricity consumer, the Mandi Samiti was responsible for the said theft. The theft has been detected as the electricity energy was being used in the different applications of the petitioner directly and consumption was not being recorded in the meters, by-passing by taping the cable. Annex. 5 contains the bills of the electricity.
The present case raises a disputed question of fact and appreciation of evidence.
Shri Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not show any material on record, on the basis of which, it may be held that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities are perverse being based on no evidence or are contrary to the evidence on record.
In a limited jurisdiction of judicial review, finding of fact recorded by the respondent no. 3 does not require to be interfered with as the judicial review lies only against the procedure adopted in a decision making, and not against the decision itself.
In view of the above, petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.