Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chatra Ram vs J.V.V.N. Ltd. & Ors on 11 August, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4116/14
CHATRA RAM
VS.
JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM
LIMITED, JODHPUR & ORS.
Date of order: 11.8.2016.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr.Vikas Bijarnia, for the petitioner. Mr.Vipul Dharnia, for the respondents.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the provisional assessment order dated 18.6.12 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), Bikaner, creating the demand for compounding charges quantified at Rs.1,70,000/- and decision dated 20.11.13 of VCR Monitoring & Reviewing Committee ('VCR Committee'), whereby the relief claimed by the petitioner has been denied and the proceeding initiated for settlement of dispute, stands dropped.
2
2. The petitioner, an agriculturist, applied for installation of electricity connection in his agriculture field situated at the village Likhmisar. On the petitioner depositing the requisite charges as demanded by the JVVNL, the electric connection with the sanctioned load of 40 HP was released in his favour. Later, on the request of the petitioner, the load was enhanced from 40 to 85 HP.
3. A vigilance checking was made by the vigilance team of JVVNL at the agriculture field of the petitioner, which found that the petitioner has installed two transformers for operating two tubewells. One of the transformer was installed near the first tubewell and yet another transformer was installed near second tubewell after erecting three poles and installing 11 KV line unauthorisedly. The checking report was prepared by the inspecting team, which is placed on record as Annexure 3. The petitioner being found taking direct supply without meter, a provisional assessment order was passed by the Assistant Engineer, assessing the 3 compounding charges a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- vide order dated 18.6.12. The petitioner represented against the same and prayed for reference of the matter to the VCR Committee. The matter was considered by the VCR Committee in its meeting held on 20.11.13 and taking into consideration the gravity of the petitioner, the VCR Committee refused to extend any relief to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner contended that in the instant case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of theft of electricity and therefore, the compounding charges assessed by the Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the VCR Committee has seriously erred in not considering this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel submitted that there being no case of theft of electricity, no compounding charges can be levied by the respondents. Learned counsel urged that the action of the respondents in creating the demand of 4 compounding charges is ex facie in violation of the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( for short "the Act").
5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was consuming the electricity by installing the transformer and extending the 11 KV line by erecting three poles without the consumption of electricity being recorded in the meter and thus, it was a clear case of theft of electricity and therefore, the provisional assessment order assessing the compounding charges was passed by the Assessing Officer. Drawing the attention of this court to the VCR dated 11.9.13 placed on record as Annexure R/1, learned counsel submitted that on vigilance checking on 11.9.13, the petitioner was again found indulged in theft of electricity, which is punishable under Section 135 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner does not pay the charges assessed, the electricity supply of the petitioner cannot be restored.
5
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. It is to be noticed that the theft of electricity is an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 135 of the Act and the trial of the offences committed under the Act is conducted by the special courts constituted by the State Government by notification in the official gazettee in exercise of power conferred by Section 153 of the Act. As per the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 154, the special courts are empowered to determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of electricity which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or exact period of theft if determined, whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as a decree of civil court. In case, the civil liability so determined finally by the special court is less than the amount deposited by 6 the consumer or the person, the excess amount is refundable by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, alongwith interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime landing rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment in terms of the provisions of sub-section(6) of Section 154.
8. A conjoint reading of the vigilance checking report and the provisional assessment order reveals that the compounding charges have been assessed by the Assessing Officer and the petitioner is given an opportunity to compound the offence by depositing the amount determined. But then, the petitioner is not under an obligation to deposit the sum specified. It goes without saying that the petitioner cannot be compelled to compound the offence in terms of provisions of Section 152 of the Act. But then, on failure of the petitioner to compound the offence, obviously, the appropriate proceedings regarding the criminal as well as civil liability shall be taken against 7 the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down.. Moreover, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the provisional assessment order, he has every right to raise the objection in this regard which are required to be dealt with by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. Obviously, by virtue of third proviso to sub- section (1A) of Section 135, on deposit or payment of assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of the Act without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1A), the electricity supply is bound to be restored.
9. In this view of the matter, the petitioner who has apparently indulged in unauthorised use of electricity, is not entitled for any indulgence by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from 8 availing the appropriate remedy available to him under the relevant statute or the general law in respect of the grievances raised in the petition.
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
Aditya/-