Jagpal Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petition impugns the direct theft assessment bills in the sum of Rs. 1,61,876/- and Rs. 2,09,903/- raised by the Respondent on the Petitioner. This Court while issuing notice of the petition, vide order dated 25th April, 2007 permitted the Petitioner to pay the amount of the two bills in two equal monthly installments payable on 30th May, 2007 and 30th June, 2007 and subject to the said payment, restrained disconnection of electricity supply. The Petitioner preferred an intra court appeal against the said order but withdrew the same and again approached this Bench for making payment of the amount of the bills in three installments. Vide order dated 30th May, 2007 the Petitioner was directed to make payment of the first installment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15th June, 2007, the second installment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15th July, 2007 and the balance amount on or before 15th August, 2007. Pleadings have been completed and the counsels have been heard.

It is one of the contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondents No. 2&3 being the officials of the Respondent No. 1 have vindictively involved the Petitioner in a case of direct theft owing to the Petitioner having earlier preferred a consumer complaint and in which cost was imposed on the Respondents and further owing to the Petitioner having refused to comply with the illegal gratification demanded by the Respondents No. 2&3.

It is further the case of the Petitioner that the address at which direct theft is alleged is a different premises than the premises at which the Petitioner in the name of his wife had applied for new electricity connection.

On the contrary, it is the plea of the Respondent that the Petitioner had earlier in 1992 applied for electricity connection at premises described as 364, Badarpur and which connection was sanctioned and energized but was on 3rd May, 2003 disconnected for non-payment of dues of Rs. 2,31,405.51p; that the Petitioner again in February/March, 2007 applied for two new connections in the name of his wife, giving the address of the premises as C-12/9 Dadan Mohalla, Badarpur. The Respondent claims to have subsequently realized that the premises of which number was earlier given as 364, Badarpur and subsequently given as C-12/9 Dadan Mohalla, Badarpur are one and the same premises.

Owing to the aforesaid factual controversy raised, this Court vide order dated 29th August, 2008 directed the SDM, Kalkaji to report whether the two addresses pertain to the same property or whether they are two different properties. The SDM was also directed to enquire locally and from the postal authorities before submitting report.

The SDM reported that both numbers i.e. C-12/9 and 364 Dadan Mohalla, Badarpur are of the same property.

However the Petitioner disputed the report of the SDM and vide order dated 11th May, 2009 the SDM was directed to file a further affidavit.

A further affidavit dated 21st August, 2009 came to be filed by the SDM reiterating that both addresses pertain to the same property.

The Respondent had also initiated prosecution of the Petitioner for direct theft. The Petitioner applied for compounding of the same. Even though the Respondent opposed the said compounding including on the ground that the Petitioner without unconditionally paying the amount of the theft assessment bills raised was not entitled to compounding but the Dy. Commissioner (South), Delhi vide order dated 26th March, 2009 allowed the compounding and held that the criminal liability and civil liability are two separate matters and the Petitioner even without satisfying the civil liability was entitled to compounding only on payment of charges prescribed there for.

Though the aforesaid order of the Dy. Commissioner has attained finality but the counsel for the Respondent relies on Rahdey Shyam Bansal Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Others, holding that the Respondent cannot be expected to accept the compounding fee without the theft bill being discharged.

As would be apparent from the above, the grounds on which the Petitioner has impugned the theft assessment bills are factual in nature and which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The factual inquiry in so far as could be conducted in writ jurisdiction and got conducted finds against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is thus not found entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction. In view of the dicta in Radhey Shyam Bansal (supra) also it appears that the Petitioner having opted for compounding of the prosecution launched against him, is not entitled to contest the civil liability arising from the same transaction.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. I refrain from imposing any costs on the Petitioner.