AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner was squarely covered under the Scheme dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) and particularly clause 12 thereof. Invoking clause 12 of the Scheme (Annexure P-1), petitioner approached the respondent authorities by way of self contained legal notice dated 4.2.2013 (Annexure P-9) seeking compounding of the offence by paying full amount of compounding charges alongwith 50% of assessment amount and simple interest @12% per annum. However, no action was taken by the respondent authorities thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of clause 3 of the Scheme (Annexure P-1) case of the petitioner was not covered under the Scheme. The applicability of the Scheme was extended upto 30.9.2012. However, it is not denied on behalf of the respondents that the grievance of the petitioner raised vide his legal notice (Annexure P-9) was not considered and no order was passed by the competent authority.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is undisputed on record that petitioner was booked for a theft case but for the first time. Clause 12 of the Scheme (Annexure P-1) reads as under:--
In theft cases booked only for the first time, full amount of compounding charges along with 50% of assessment amount along with simple interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged from such consumers.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that case of the petitioner was not covered under clause 3 of the Scheme does not appeal to reason. Clause 3 of the Scheme is also reproduced and the same reads as under:--
The scheme will be available to all disputes with consumers of electricity pending in courts including DCDRF, State Commission or in Arbitration etc. as on 30/6/2012.
It has also come on record that last date of the Scheme, i.e. 30.6.2012, was extended up to 30.9.2012 vide Annexure R-1/1. It is also not in dispute that the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction (Annexure P-3) is pending before this Court vide CRA No. 2377-SB of 2011. Learned counsel for the parties are also ad idem that the offence in question is compoundable. Petitioner seeks compounding of offence as per the Scheme formulated by the respondents vide Annexure P-1, Having said that this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner is entitled for compounding the offence in view of clause 12 of the Scheme (Annexure P-1).
To deny the claim of the petitioner on the basis of clause 3 of the Scheme would be contrary to the scheme and object of the Act, wherein the offence of theft of electricity has been made compoundable. Petitioner has already faced the mental agony of criminal trial. However, that being totally independent proceedings, petitioner was entitled to get the offence compounded in the manner provided under the Scheme (Annexure P-1). The very purpose and object of the Scheme would be defeated if the petitioner is not allowed to get the offence compounded despite his willingness to pay the whole amount alongwith 50% of the assessment amount and simple interest @12% per annum. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the petitioner is entitled for getting the offence compounded in view of clause 12 of the Scheme (Annexure P-1).
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that in the given fact situation of the present case, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, respondent authorities are directed to consider the legal notice of the petitioner Annexure P-9, in view of clause 12 of the Scheme and the directions issued here-in-above. Let the respondents intimate the petitioner about the total amount to be paid by the petitioner. Once the total amount to be paid by the petitioner is intimated to him by the respondent authorities, petitioner will pay the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. Further necessary orders shall be passed by the competent authority, in accordance with law. Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued here-in-above, the present writ petition stands allowed, however with no order as to costs.