( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of orders dated 19. 05. 2006 and 30. 10. 2006 passed by the Electricity Court and to quash the criminal complaint No. 24 of 2006 and the proceedings arisen thereof, pending on the Board of learned Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge electricity Court, Delhi (West ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner Corporation allotted a petrol pump under Kargil Martyr Scheme to the respondent No. 2 at Hari Nagar, Delhi. The allotment was on license basis and the electricity meter was got installed by the petitioner himself in its own name. The allotment letter contained following conditions in respect of use of electricity meter:

"6 (b) - The Corporation shall arrange for all electrical and water connections and shall pay the deposits, if any, required to be paid in connection with the Corporation's property mentioned in the schedule I and ii. The Dealer shall however, pay all the bills for electricity and water consumed at the said Corporation's property as shown in the bills issued by the authorities concerned and such other expenses incurred by the dealer in running the dealership. "

( 3 ) THE Respondent No. 2 was responsible for following all rules and regulations and Bye-laws of State and Municipal bodies etc. in terms of Clause 22 (d) of the license agreement.

( 4 ) AN inspection of the premises was carried out by a team of BSES officers on 18. 3. 2006 and at the time of inspection, it was found that meter box plastic seals Nos. D-59284-59286 were tampered with and re-affixed with some adhesive. The meter was made slower by the consumer by 80. 25% i. e. if 100 units are consumed, the meter would show only 19. 75 units. The inspection team opened the meter box and found that the meter terminal plastic seal No. 59282 was tampered and hologram half seals no. R139052 and R 139053 were also tampered with. Both sides of the ultrasonic welding strips of the meter were found tampered and re-fixed. After finding the meter tampered and electricity being stolen on large scale, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and against respondent No. 2 for dishonest abstraction of electricity before the learned special Judge. The learned Special Judge, after recording pre-summoning evidence and after considering all documents of inspection, photographs of the meter and tampered seals, load report and the speaking order passed by the competent authority in respect of theft bill, prima facie found that a case was made out against the petitioner under Section 135 read with Section 151 of the electricity Act (in short "the Act") and he issued summons to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 30. 10. 2006.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of abstraction of electricity, a theft bill for a sum of Rs. 16,06,510/- was raised against respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the State commission for Consumer Protection and the said Commission directed respondent no. 1 to restore the electricity connection if already disconnected subject to payment of the bill to be raised strictly in terms of Section 56 of the Act on consumption pattern of preceding six months from the date of inspection. Against this order, the BSES filed a revision petition before the National Commission which was dismissed on 28. 7. 2006, BSES then preferred a review petition which is pending. It is submitted that the petitioner company, who allotted the petrol pump had nothing to do with the theft of electricity and the petitioner has been wrongly summoned under Section 150 of the Act on the allegations of abetment. There was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner abeted the theft of electricity. The petitioner prayed for quashing of orders summoning the petitioner and quashing of complaint itself.

( 6 ) IT is surprising that the petitioner had come for quashing of complaint. On one hand, the petitioner argued that if

Click Here to Read the rest of this document