KAMIL Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2006 rejecting the representation made by the petitioner against the provisional assessment and the demand notice, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Facts, in brief, which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that petitioner is a consumer of 6.702 H.P. connection bearing no. 062314 for running a small workshop. A surprise checking at the workshop of the petitioner was carried out on 26.07.2005 and it was found that petitioner was consuming a load of 32.16 H.P., which was far too excessive than the sanctioned load of 6.7 H.P. Petitioner was also found illegally using electrical energy directly taking connection from L.T. Line. An inspection report dated 26.07.2005 was prepared accordingly. An FIR for theft of electricity was also lodged against the petitioner on the same day.