AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against assessment order dated 16.10.2000 (AnnexureVI to the writ petition) and order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Appellate Committee (AnnexureXIII to the writ petition) and recovery proceedings pursuant thereto. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing respondent No.4, Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution DivisionII, Sector16, NOIDA to refund the amount of Rs.13,13,267/ realised from the petitioner along with interest.
AnnexureIV to the writ petition is judgment dated 09.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Gautam Budh Nagar in O.S. No.9 of 1999, M/s Midi Extrusions Limited and another Vs. V.P. Electricity Board and another. Pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Court, details of arrears were provided to the petitioner and thereafter, petitioner filed representation, he was personally heard and then assessment order dated 16.10.2000 was passed.
Premises of the petitioner were checked on 13.08.1998 and Ceiling Certificate No.13/48 was issued, which was signed by the representative of the petitioner in which polarity of RPhase was found reversed. Prior checking had been done on 22.01.1997. In the assessment order dated 16.10.2000 passed by Executive Engineer, it is mentioned that "Therefore it was presumed that this defect of reversal of polarity might have taken place at the time of last checking i.e. on 22.01.1997 by Executive Engineer (Test) during his routine checking as confirmed vide Ceiling Certificate No.16/20." The bill, which was sent, was of Rs.28,11,281.43.
The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no allegation that the meter had been tempered and at the time of earlier inspection on 22.01.1997 polarity was not found reversed, hence if there was reversal of polarity, then it was a result of checking dated 22.01.1997. The argument is quite acceptable. However, the question is that the Executive Engineer (Test), who inspected the meter on 22.01.1997, was an expert and he was not supposed to cause such change in the meter, which recorded lesser consumption than actual. Accordingly, it was done to give undue benefit the petitioner. It is inconceivable that Executive Engineer (Test) will do anything for the benefit of the petitioner without being in league/handinglove with him.
Accordingly, impugned orders are modified and it is directed that 3/4th of the demanded amount shall be paid by the petitioner and 1/4th shall be recovered from the Executive Engineer and the Junior Engineer who inspected the premises of the petitioner and gave the report on 22.01.1997. The respondents No.1 to 4 may also initiate disciplinary proceedings against those Executive Engineer (Test) and Junior Engineer, who inspected the premises/meter of the petitioner and gave report on 22.01.1997.
Writ Petition is disposed of.