2012 Supreme(All) 1704
[2012(8) ADJ 595 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND ADITYA NATH MITTAL, JJ.
VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24772 of 2012, decided on 10th July, 2012)
Counsel :
Sujeet Sinha for the Petitioner; Anubhav Shukla, Subhash Gosain, Mahboob Ahmad and C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Electricity Act, 2003—Sections 126 and 127—U.P. Electricity Code, 2005—Clause 6.8—Recovery—Electricity theft—Demand was made without deciding petitioner’s objection—On notice issued by High Court, Chairman and Managing Director of U.P. Power Corporation filed affidavit and annexed his order dated 30.6.2012—By which he directed all Electricity Distribution Divisions and Executive Engineers to follow it—By this order it was directed that final assessment of electricity dues be made after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to consumers on their objections on provisional assessment—Recovery of dues, thereafter be made only after final assessment—High Court on basis of this affidavit, expected that directions of order dated 30.6.2012 will be followed—In the instant case, petitioner failed to comply with interim direction of High Court to deposit Rs. 75,000—But Rs. 23,000 has been recovered by Amin from him—High Court, therefore, directed that this amount of Rs. 23,000 should be taken into account while making final assessment—It was further directed that State will not realise recovery charges—High Court gave liberty to petitioner for filing appeal under Section 127. [Paras 2 to 5 and 8 to 12]
Result; Order Accordingly.
By the Court.—We have heard Shri Sujeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Mehboob Ahmad appears for U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
2. On 30.5.2012, we passed following orders as follows :
“In this local matter in which case of action has arisen at Allahabad, for last 15 days, learned counsel appearing for the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Allahabad has not been able to obtain instructions. Today once again a prayer has been made by Shri Subhash Gosain to grant him time to seek instructions whether any final assessment was completed under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 before issuing recovery certificate.
In the electricity matters coming before the Court we are hardly getting any assistance from the counsels appearing for the Electricity Department. They are unable to obtain instructions even after a period of more than two to three weeks. Now an excuse has been given that the counsels have been changed and the work is being reallocated.
In the present case it is stated that the petitioner has commercial connection from which he is doing book binding business. The assessment has been made without deciding the petitioner’s objections treating the work to be industrial work.
In the crime of theft of electricity reported by the Executive Engineer, the police has submitted final report on the ground that offence has been compounded.
Let the respondent file counter-affidavit within three weeks.
Until further orders, in case the petitioner deposits Rs. 75,000/- within a week, the recovery of the remaining amount shall remain stayed. The petitioner’s connection will also be reconnected and the matter whether the petitioner does not fall within the category of commercial or industrial will be decided by the Executive Engineer.
Since large number of cases are coming from all over Uttar Pradesh in which citations are being issued under the U.P. Government Electricity Undertaking (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1958, without making any final assessment, we direct the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation to issue strict instructions to all the corporations distributing electricity, and the Executive Engineers of the Electricity Distribution Divisions of these Corporations, to comply with the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. They may be given strict instructions not to issue any recovery certificate until and unless a final assessment is made in theft case, after giving opportunity to the consumers under Section 126 (1) of the Act. Even if no objection has been filed, sub-section (3) of Section 126 provide that the Executive Engineer will record finding that the provisional assessment order was served upon the consumer and thereafter make final assessment by a reasoned order. If the objections have been filed, the Executive Engineer must consider these objections in his order before making final assessment and issuing recovery certificate.
The Managing Director, U.P. will comply with this order and submit report to the Court. The Registrar General will sent a copy of this order to the Managing Director of U.P. Power Corporation, Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow. Since large number of cases are pending in this Court, the Managing Director will also consider to withdraw the recoveries in which no final assessment order has been passed. The recoveries will be sent in future only in those cases in which final assessment orders are passed by the Executive Engineer, and which will also enable the consumer to get an opportunity to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Act.
List on 10th July, 2012.”
3. Shri Mahboob Ahmad has filed an affidavit of Shri Awanish Kumar Awasthi, Chairman and Managing Director of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd, Shakti Bhawan, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow in compliance with the aforesaid orders. Alongwith the affidavit