DINESH KUMAR NIGAM Vs. KANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three fold prayers have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition :

(2.) At the very outset, Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of this writ petition stating that two months after the detection of the theft of the electrical energy by the petitioner, he moved the Electrical Inspector, (who is not an employee of the U.P.S.E.B. as described in the writ petition rather an employee of the State Government appointed under Section 36 of the Indian Electricity Act) for finding fault with the meter which in view of the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in M.P.E.B. v. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71 (Para 9), is not entertainable by respondent No. 2.

(3.) To this preliminary objection. Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioner correctly moved the Electrical Inspector in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Chandra Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 349, holding that mere allegation about tampering of meter will not be sufficient to attract the Ingredients of theft nor in fact such a case has been pleaded by the respondents or any criminal case filed besides the ratio relied upon is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. On merits in regard to the remaining prayers, he further proceeded to submit that since the respondents had coerced the petitioner to execute the cheques in question the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for.