SANJAY RIZVI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Mridul Tripathi representing respondent nos.1 to 6.

(2.) Facts of the case stated in brief are that the petitioner is carrying on business of repairing of pumps and diesel generating sets and had obtained commercial electricity connection no. CNO/5083/011552 from respondents and was regularly depositing bills. An inspection was made by respondent nos.4 to 6 on 30.3.2008 in his premises. It is alleged that though the Inspecting Authority did not find any irregularity with regard to use of the electricity by the petitioner, however, respondent nos. 4 & 5, who were annoyed because the petitioner had not succumbed to their earlier illegal demands, recorded incorrect conclusion in the inspection memo and noted an estimated amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which the petitioner allegedly had paid lessor to the actual consumption and also imposed Rs.2,80,000/- penalty upon the petitioner and further demanded reply within 24 hours on 31.3.2008. The petitioner has stated that he never misused or stole the electricity at any point of time, therefore, in order to apprise the correct facts he requested for the verification of electricity meter installed in the premises through Meter Reader Instrument Software (MRI) and mentioned this fact in the inspecting memo itself. Copy of the inspection memo containing the request of the petitioner for MRI has been filed as annexure no.1 to the writ petition. The petitioner also submitted detailed reply before the respondents on 31.3.2008 contending that the inspection memo contains incorrect facts and he has never stolen the electricity line and as such he is not liable to deposit the huge amount, as directed therein. The petitioner has further contended that while framing the provisional assessment the prescribed procedure has not been followed. Copy of the reply dated 31.3.2008 has been submitted as annexure no.2. The respondents, however, wrongly directed respondent no.7 to lodge an FIR under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same was lodged on 31.3.2008 at P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar at case crime no.117 of 2008. To avoid harassment and humiliation the petitioner deposited Rs.1,10,000/- with the respondent no.3 on 11.4.2008. Thereafter, respondent no.3 informed about the said deposit to the Investigating Officer vide letter dated 17.5.2008. Inspite of the aforesaid deposit the police officials continued threatening the petitioner and in this view of the matter the petitioner was compelled to deposit the remaining amount of penalty of Rs.1,70,000/- on 19.5.2008. It has been contended that the petitioner was not obliged to deposit the said amount as he had not committed any offence or irregularity. Photocopies of deposit of amount have also been filed. It is further contended that the petitioner met respondent nos.1 to 3 several times and requested them for the verification of the meter through MRI and also requested that the provisional assessment, which has been illegally drawn, may be withdrawn and suitable orders with regard to the actual consumption of the electricity by the petitioner may be passed after taking into consideration the bills already deposited by him. The petitioner submitted representations in this regard on 18.4.2008, 2.7.2008 and 7.8.2008, but no remedial measures were taken by the respondents.

(3.) Further contention is that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have at least verified the electricity meter which was taken into possession by them through the procedure of MRI and its non-verification renders the entire order per se illegal. The respondents have not disposed of the application/representations submitted by the petitioner. The act of the respondents is indicative that exorbitant amount of penalty has been imposed deliberately and purposely. The correct procedure was not adopted while making the inspection and preparing the inspection memo. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to refund the penalty amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. He has further prayed that the respondents be mandated to dispose of the applications/representations submitted by the petitioner and get the electricity meters verified through MRI. He has also sought directions in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 to pay damages for inconvenience caused to him on account of their harassing attitude.