BHOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a proprietor of Sadhbhavna Resort, Chaukori, Berinag. Petitioner is a consumer of Electricity Department. He is paying his electricity bill regularly. On 29/1/2019, the electricity meter of the Sadhbhavna Resort was burnt due to unknown reasons. Petitioner moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer to the effect that on 29/1/2019, meter at Sadhbhawna Resort was burnt due to unknown reasons, therefore, his electricity meter may be changed. On this application, the official of the Electricity Department made an endorsement that electricity meter was found burnt and this information has been given in the office on 1/2/2019. On the same day i.e. on 1/2/2019, Sub Divisional Officer and Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department came to Sadhbhavna Resort and inspected the spot. On inspection, they did not find CT Box Seal, Meter Terminal Seal and Half Seal No. and reported that meter was found burnt. Thereafter, Respondent Department lodged an FIR being FIR No. 5 of 2019 under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act. On 6/2/2019, petitioner moved an application for re-connection of electricity. The Electricity Department sent an electricity bill with effect from 16/12/2018 to 30/1/2019 in which reading shown as NA. Respondent Department did not connect the electricity and thereafter, on 14/2/2019, raised a demand of Rs.7,14,271.00. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. M. S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. M. S. Rawat, Advocate for Electricity Department and perusal the record.

(3.) From perusal of documents, it transpires that present case is not a case of electricity theft. It is a case of meter burning and information whereof was given by the petitioner to the Electricity Department immediately. From perusal of the endorsement made on Annexure No. 1 and inspection report Annexure No. 2, it can safely be said that meter of Sadhbhavna Resort was burnt and this fact was within the knowledge of respondent Department. After inspection, Respondent Department did not make any assessment and directly moved to lodge an FIR, treating it as a case of theft, which is not permissible.