RAJ SINGH Vs. UHBVNL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the assessment order dtd. 3/3/2011 (Annexure P-2) passed under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by respondent(s)-Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, whereby, penality of Rs.85,433.00 has been imposed and has also challenged another memo No. 7783 dtd. 3/3/2011, whereby, notice for compounding of offence of theft of electricity under Ss. 135 and 152 of the Act, ibid, was initiated. The said two orders have been passed on the basis of impugned Inspection Report dtd. 5/1/2011 (Annexure P1) conducted by the respondent-Nigam.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has drawn my attention to the Inspection Report, wherein, the inspection team recorded that the seal of the meter 'seems to be re-fixed with a glue type of substance'. He further submits that assuming the opinion of the inspection team to be correct, the same was not conclusive as they themselves felt that it seems to be re-fixed and in the circumstances, they ought to have sent the meter for forensic test to an appropriate laboratory.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that merely on the basis of conjectures and opinion of the inspection team, the impugned assessment order was passed on the presumption of theft under Sec. 135 of the Act, ibid. He relies on a judgment rendered by this Court in case titled as M/s JTG Alloys Private Limited vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others, reported as 2014 (5) Law Herald (P&H).