Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Arjun Singh vs A V V N Ltd And Ors on 27 September, 2011
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.10514/2011 (Arjun Singh Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.) Date of Order: 27/09/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the action taken by the respondent, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., in pursuance to the vigilance report dated 23.05.2011 be set aside and the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,968/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
The facts of the case are that on 23.05.2011 a Vigilance Team headed by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance) Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sikar, visited the house of the petitioner and checked the electric meter and appliances and found the petitioner guilty of theft of electricity and imposed penalty of Rs.14,968/- for unlawful abstraction of electricity to the extent of 7484 watt. The case of the petitioner is that a plain reading of the VCR shows that it bears signature not of the consumer (the petitioner) but of a purported representative of the consumer. It is submitted that the entire report of the Vigilance Team is absolutely false and in fact no checking took place on 23.05.2011 and the report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner only to put pressure on the petitioner with a malafide intention of extorting money due to political reason. The petitioner further submits that the malafides in the matter are evident from the fact that in spite of seven days time to make the deposit of the penalty amount of Rs.14,968/- as granted to him, FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unlawful abstraction of electricity on 26.05.2011. The petitioner attributes the FIR to legal malice and only as the way of extorting the penalty amount from the petitioner. The petitioner has, indeed, deposited the amount of Rs.14,968/- as penalty with the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nitam Ltd. alleged under coercion and seeks refund thereof.
I have considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition.
The fact of the matter is that a penalty of Rs.14,968/- has been deposited by the petitioner in respect of unlawful abstraction of electricity found in the course of checking by the Vigilance Team on 23.05.2011 at his house.
The allegations of malafide political pressure and extortion against a State Government instrumentality without anything more are absolutely vague and of no consequence. They are liable to be rejected.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged wrongful demand based on the vigilance report dated 23.05.2011, it is for him to avail an alternative remedy under the RSEB General Conditions of Supply and go for settlement with the respondent, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. The question of unlawful abstraction of electricity by the petitioner as found by the Vigilance Team on 23.05.211 is a question of fact and cannot be addressed in this writ petition.
I therefore dismisses the writ petition as being meritless and misdirected.
However, in the event the petitioner were take his proceedings under the RSEB General Conditions of Supply, the respondents are expected that the grievance as raised would be addressed expeditiously and within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
MS/-