ISLAM Vs. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5. Shri Nripendra Mishra appears for respondent nos.2 and 3.

(2.) The petitioner is a farmer and a consumer of electricity for running a tube well for which he has a valid electricity connection with sanctioned load of 7.5 HP. He is regularly paying his bills. On 15.1.2012 in a surprise inspection made in respect of four farmers including the petitioner in which it was found that the petitioner was using his electricity connection for running 'kolhu' unauthorisedly for crushing sugarcane by using a cable on the LT line. A provisional assessment was made and was sent to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his objections.

(3.) In his objections dated 25.1.2012 the petitioner submitted that a false report has been generated against him. He is using electricity for authorised purposes. There is no electricity line or any electricity pole in or around the petitioner's residential premise or on his agricultural land. The electricity connection sanctioned to the petitioner authorises him to use it for agricultural purposes and which includes 'kolhu' and thrasher. He has relied upon an order passed by the General Manager, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. dated 11th November, 2005 in which it is clarified that a farmer may use the private tube well connection sanctioned to him for the purposes of running 'kolhu' and 'kutti machine' and that no action may be taken, if he uses the authorised connection for tube well for agricultural purposes on the sanctioned load for 'kolhu' or 'kutti machine'. The order clarifies that in case a farmer uses the electricity connection for a load higher than the sanctioned load and installs second meter, action may be taken against him in accordance with law.