INDERJIT SINGH Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns the speaking order dated 3rd November, 2006 of the respondent finding the petitioner guilty of Dishonest Abstraction of Energy (DAE) and consequent demand for 2,44,647/-. This Court while issuing notice of the petition on 11th September, 2007 restrained the respondent from enforcing the demand impugned, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of 50,000/- with the respondent. The said amount was reported to have been deposited and the interim order was made absolute on 22nd May, 2009. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The parties were referred to the continuous Lok Adalat of this Court but no settlement could be arrived at. The counsels have been heard.

(2.) The dispute relates to the electricity connection for domestic purposes installed in the premises of the petitioner at RA-73, Inderpuri, New Delhi. Besides the said domestic electricity connection, the said premises is also provided with a commercial electricity connection for the shop run by the petitioner on the ground floor of the property.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the domestic electricity connection and to which the dispute pertains was burnt at 2330 hours in the night on 15th September, 2006 and on immediate reporting by the petitioner, officials of the respondent reached the premises at 0115 hours in the night and made the electricity supply direct with the assurance to replace the burnt meter; however the officials of the Enforcement Assessment Cell, Keshavpuram, Lawrence Road, Delhi of the respondent visited the premises of the petitioner on 16th September, 2006 i.e. the very next date and gave a show cause notice to the petitioner unnecessarily booking the petitioner under Sections 126 & 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003; the petitioner appeared before the concerned official of the respondent on 25th September, 2006 but the respondent without regard to the submissions of the petitioner passed the impugned speaking order and raised the impugned demand. The petitioner denies that he has indulged in any DAE of which he has been found guilty.