Back
2011 Supreme(All) 1416
2011 (87) ALR 17
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Satya Poot Mehrotra,J. and Rajesh Chandra,J.
Suresh Kumar
Vs.
U.P. Power Corporation And Others
WRIT - C No. - 15788 of 2011
Decided on : 12.5.2011
V.S. Rajpoot
C.S.C.,Pankaj Kr. Shukla
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the relevant provisions of law in conducting Provisional Assessment under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.
Headnote:
Electricity Theft - Provisional Assessment - Electricity Act, 2003, U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - The court discussed the Provisional Assessment under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, highlighting the lack of calculation and mention of amount in the Provisional Assessment document. The court directed the petitioner to submit objections and ordered the Executive Engineer to consider the objections treating the Assessment Order as Provisional Assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a Citation dated 20th December, 2010 and a Provisional Assessment dated 1-5-2008 due to alleged theft of electricity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Provisional Assessment did not comply with the relevant provisions of law and directed the petitioner to submit objections for consideration by the Executive Engineer.
Issues: Validity of Provisional Assessment, Consideration of Objections, Recovery Proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Provisional Assessment did not meet the requirements under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, and directed the Executive Engineer to consider the petitioner's objections.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to submit objections and for the Executive Engineer to consider the objections treating the Assessment Order as Provisional Assessment.
Counter? Affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.
2. The Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.?
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying? for quashing the Citation dated 20th December, 2010 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition) and the? Assessment (described as "Provisional Assessment") dated 1-5-2008 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition).
4. It appears that checking was made in the premises of the petitioner on 10th January, 2008. Theft of electricity was allegedly detected.
5. Copy of the Checking Report has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2.
6. Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the basis of instructions received by him, has stated that pursuant? to the said checking,? Provisional Assessment dated 29-2-2008 was made in respect of the petitioner. A photostat copy of the Communication No. 191 dated 29th February, 2008 has been produced by Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla ? stating the same to be the Provisional Assessment in respect of the petitioner. Let the said document be placed on record .
7. A perusal of the said document shows? that the same does not contain any calculation in regard to the Provisional Assessment as per the relevant provisions of law. Even the amount provisionally assessed against the petitioner on account of the alleged theft of electricity, has not been mentioned in the said document. In our opinion, the said document? cannot be said to be Provisional Assessment as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the? Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.
8. It is further stated by Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that as no objections were received from the petitioner against the Provisional Assessment dated 29th February, 2008, Final Assessment Order dated 1-5-2008 was issued in respect of the petitioner.
9. Copy of the said Assessment Order dated 1-5-2008 has been filed as Annexure CA-2 to the Counter Affidavit.
10. Shri V.S. Rajpoot, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no Provisional Assessment dated 29th February, 2008 was received by the petitioner.? What was received by the petitioner, was the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 1-5-2008, copy whereof has also been filed as Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition. Treating the said Assessment Order dated 1-5-2008 to be Provisional Assessment, the petitioner submitted his Objections? dated 22nd May, 2008 (Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition ). Copy of the said objections has also been filed as Annexure RA-2 to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
11. It is submitted by Shri V.S. Rajpoot, learned counsel for the petitioner that the said objections have not so far been decided by the respondent No. 2.
12. Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that no Objections dated 22nd May, 2008 were received by the respondent No.2. In any case, it is submitted by Shri Shukla, the Assessment Order dated 1-5-2008 was Final Assessment Order and, therefore, there was no occasion for filing any objections in respect of the same.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. As noted above, even if the version of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 regarding Provisional Assessment having been made on 29th February, 2008 were to be accepted, the said Provisional Assessment was not in accordance with law, as the same did not contain any calculation regarding the Provisional Assessment not did it mention any amount in regard to the Provisional Assessment.
15. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served? by disposing of the Writ Petition with the following directions :-
1. Within four weeks from today, the petitioner will submit? an application be
