ASHOK LODHA Vs. JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITARAN NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the orders of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,63,816/ - for the alleged theft and misuse of the electricity.

(2.) THE petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Royal Finishing Works. On 17.5.1997 a vigilance checking was made at the factory of the petitioner. This checking was effected without any notice to the petitioner as required under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). A report was prepared by the party and the signatures of Rikhab Raj were obtained alleging him to be the consumer. A copy of the said report dated 17.5.1997 has been produced as Annex. 2 with the writ petition. It would be worth while to mention here that according to the petitioner Rikhab Raj was not the authorised Manager of the factory. He was a small employee and had no business to communicate on behalf of the petitioner. However, on being pointed out to the learned Counsel that the cheque which is alleged to have been handed over to the R.S.E.B. for Rs. 2,50,000/ - signed by the father of the petitioner Ashok Lodha was sent under the signatures of Rikhab Raj. learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfactorily establish the point that Rikhab Raj had no authority to act on behalf of the petitioner. Annex. 2 the inspection report in its original version has a hand written endorsement to the fact that

(3.) BUT such endorsement is not occurring on the type copy furnished by the learned Counsel. This lapse was also pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner but no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the learned Counsel for the petitioner of this lapse also.