Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2244 (ALL)

Vishal Pandey v. State of U. P.

2008-11-07

RAKESH TIWARI

body2008
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the record. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property of Hotel Vivek in the year 2007 and re-named it as Hotel Kanishka. Electricity meter was also transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser i.e. Shri Vishal Pandey. He has deposited the required amount for transfer if of the Electricity meter in his own name. 2. It appears that thereafter electricity raid was conducted on 11.10.2007 by the Electricity department in the premises of petitioner's Hotel Kanishka and a report was prepared by the officers of the raiding party interalia, that the petitioner had indulged in the theft of electricity by way of cable wire which was directly attached from the electricity poll to the main connection. An FIR was also lodged on 13.10.2007 against younger brother of the petitioner that he had indulged in the theft of electricity. On 16.10.2007 the petitioner had deposited the Shaman Shulk (compounding charges) and an assessment bill was raised by the electricity company amounting to Rs. 88,568.00, half of which was paid by the petitioner. 3. On 26.2.2008 appeal was preferred by the petitioner interalia, that the proceedings had been initiated against his younger brother but not against the person in whose name meter connection has been. The petitioner and his younger brother are residing jointly with the family in the same premises and there is no division in the family. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the electricity cable was found to be illegally connected from the main electric meter of the petitioner in respect of which an agreement was executed on 4.4.2007 between the electricity department a and the petitioner for payment of electricity dues. 4. Recovery in respect of illegal connection and theft of energy have been assessed amounting to Rs. 88,568.00, out of which Rs. 44285.00 has already been deposited by the consumer on 262.2008 in part compliance thereof. The petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount of Rs. 44,283.00 vide order dated 4.9.2008 appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 5. 4. Recovery in respect of illegal connection and theft of energy have been assessed amounting to Rs. 88,568.00, out of which Rs. 44285.00 has already been deposited by the consumer on 262.2008 in part compliance thereof. The petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount of Rs. 44,283.00 vide order dated 4.9.2008 appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 5. The only contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the proceedings have been initiated against his younger brother, hence he is not liable to pay the amount as he has not been heard before ordering recovery of dues against him. 6. In this regard notice may be had that electricity cable was found prima facie to be connected by the raiding party from the electricity pole to the main electric meter of the petitioner which is theft of energy. An agreement in respect of transfer of electric meter in the name of the petitioner has already been executed between the previous landlord and him on 4.7.2007. The younger brother of the petitioner is living with him and helping the business of the petitioner in the hotel premises and was representing him in the proceedings. Technically the meter may be in the name of the petitioner but as the family is living jointly in the same premises, and there is no division of the family, the petitioner may pay the electricity dues as assessed and recover the same from his brother if there is any division or family partition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that whether the petitioner pays the due or his brother pays makes no difference but as he was out of Station at Aligarh and the proceedings have been initiated against his younger brother have culminated into a compromise with the authority, hence the same are illegal and arbitrary. In the backdrop of the case, in my opinion, the contention of the petitioner is of no consequence. 8. In view of the matter, since the family is jointly living together in the same premises and there is no division in the family, this technical objection that the proceedings have been initiated against his younger brother, hence the proceedings are illegal and arbitrary is not sustainable. An amount of Rs. 44,285.00 has already been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the settlement with the authority when the petitioner has conceded that amount assessed is correct. An amount of Rs. 44,285.00 has already been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the settlement with the authority when the petitioner has conceded that amount assessed is correct. In the opinion of the Court, as all the members of the family are consumers and it does not make any difference if one of the family members of he joint Hindu family represents the other member in whose name the meter is installed who was out of Station at Aligarh will not render the proceeding illegal inspite of some irregularity in issuance of notice in the name of the petitioner. 9. For all the reasons stated above I am not inclined to interfere in the matter on this mere technicality. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.