RAKESH SINGH NARWARIA Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by the appellant/petitioner are directed against the common order dated 14/02/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21533/2011 & Writ Petition No.23249/2011.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: The appellant is the Director of M/s. Parivar Pet Products Private Limited and running an industry, manufacturing containers and plastic bottles in the schedule premises. He has obtained the electricity supply to the installation bearing RR No. N2 HT 37 and he has paid upto date electricity charges as and when the bills were issued by the respondents. There is no tampering with the said installation. When things stood thus, the Vigilance Squad attached to the BESCOM have inspected the premises on 21.1.2009, removed the installation on the ground that, there is tampering with the said installation and there is theft of electricity. The Vigilance squad, after making spot inspection and after drawing the mahazar submitted the detailed report to the competent authority of the respondents-Corporation. On the basis of the said report, back billing demand notice was issued by 2nd respondent to the appellant. The appellant, instead of paying the amount shown in the demand notice towards back billing charges, has filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.3382/2009 for restoration of the power and for quashing of the notice dated 31.1.2009, on the ground that he has not tampered the meter and the report submitted by the Vigilance squad cannot be accepted. In W.P.No.3382/2009, this Court has directed to restore the electricity supply subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.27/- lakhs by the appellant/petitioner. It is the case of the appellant that he has deposited Rs.27/- lakhs and power supply was restored. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to dispose of the same in accordance with law after considering the objections to be filed by the appellant to the show cause notice/back billing demand notice. Thereafter, objections were filed by the appellant before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority, after considering the objections filed by the appellant and after going through the report submitted by the Vigilance Squat and the relevant material available on file and the existing regulations, has rejected the stand taken by the appellant in his objection and confirmed the demand. Against which, appellant has filed one more petition before this Court for the second time in W.P.No.14099/2009 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 2.3.2009 for release of the amount of Rs.27/- lakhs.

(3.) The said writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to supply the lab report within a period of one week. Eventually, the matter was before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority having regard to the material placed and with reference to the materials available on record, and evidence let in by the officials of the respondents was of the view that indeed, there was theft of electricity and the appellant is liable to be penalized for such folly. The appeal of the appellant was accepted in part and the back billing charges was limited for the period from 16.4.2008 to 21.1.2009. Against which, the appellant has filed W.P.No. 21533/2011 and W.P.No.23249/2011 and those writ petitions had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 14/2/2012. The main ground urged by the appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge is that, no opportunity was provided by the Appellate Authority, inspite, he was present on various stages, his evidence was not recorded. But it was the case of the respondents that, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the appellant/petitioner has failed to substantiate his case by producing oral and documentary evidence and therefore, respondents have examined their officials who were part of the Vigilance Squad and submitted that if when the opportunity given is not availed by the appellant/petitioner, he cannot claim that he was denied an opportunity and therefore, interference does not call for.