RAJ PAL Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing CW No. 5371/99 challenging the demand raised by the respondents on the basis of an alleged raid on the premises of the petitioner on 2.8.1999. One of the grounds taken up in the said writ petition was that the action had been initiated against the petitioner without issuance of any show cause notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Vide orders dated 6.9.1999 this Court had disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. It was also ordered that the Superintending Engineer (Enforcement) Delhi vidyut Board, Nehru Place, New Delhi shall hear the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

(2.) After the aforesaid directions a letter (wrongly dated 20.8.1999) Annexure B was issued fixing personal hearing for 27.9.1999. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 25.9.1999 (Annexxure C) in which he raised a plea that no show cause notice had been served upon him inspite of directions and unless a show cause notice containing the allegations is served upon him, he shall not be in a position to present his case before the Superintending Engineer. Thereafter the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 28.9.1999 (annexure D) to the petitioner containing imputations that excess load was found on his power connection, the seals of the meter were fictitious and even the rivets had been tempered with. He was called for hearing on 5.10.1999. On 4.10.1999 the petitioner submitted a reply (Annexure E) in which he specifically mentioned in Para 1 itself that neither inspection report of the enforcement nor of meter testing department had been given to him in regard to the alleged raid conducted on 2.8.1999. He raised several other pleas also to highlight that there was no excess load on the meter in question and the allegations regarding the tempering of the meter etc. were without any basis. The Superintending Engineer, in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 6.9.1999, passed an order on 4.11.1999 holding that the petitioner was indulging in theft of electricity by fraudulent means and held that the demand raised against him was as per tariff schedule.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Superintending Engineer had neither supplied to the petitioner a copy of the inspection report in regard to the alleged raid on 2.8.1999 nor any copy of the meter testing department. It is submitted that Superintending Engineer had also without any basis observed that it was a common case of parties that a joint inspection was carried out on 2.8.1999. He had also wrongly observed that the excessive load had not been disputed by the petitioner whereas the petitioner was disputing it from day one. The observation that the report was prepared in the presence of the representative of the petitioner was also without any basis as the petitioner had no where admitted that any representative was present at the time of inspection and had signed the Inspection report, these observations were made without confronting the petition with the alleged signatures of so called representative. Learned counsel contends that the observations that metering position was checked by the joint team in the presence of the consumer were also made without considering the defence of petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 4.11.1999 was passed machanically, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and without giving an adequate opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case.