Delhi High Court
Guru Bachan Kaur vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 31 July, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed seeking
directions against the respondents to withdraw the
electricity bill in respect of the meter bearing K
No. 79742775. It is stated in the petition that the
petitioner is residing at S-93, WZ-221, Ground Floor,
Vishnu Garden, New Delhi where the electricity meter
was installed. On 15.6.92 a notice was served on t he
petitioner to show cause in view of the fact that the
tampering of the glass of the meter was found on
inspection. An FIR was also lodged on 17.6.1992 for
theft of electricity and the meter was removed. It is
stated in the petition that the petitioner was
discharged on 18.7.1996 from the criminal case though
the copies of the orders have not been annexed to the
writ petition. It is further stated that though the
meter was removed yet the electricity bills are still
being sent and a bill of Rs. 34,32,232/- has been sent
even though the sanctioned load is of 0.25 KW. Since
no response was forthcoming form the respondent, the
writ petition has been filed.
2. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the
action was taken by the respondent in view of
inspection report dated 29.4.1992. The petitioner
filed suit bearing No. 786/92 in October, 1992 and the
trial court was pleased to pass an order for
restoration of electricity and accordingly the
electricity was restored. The petitioner, however,
failed to make the payment even after the reconnection
of electricity. The suit was subsequently dismissed
for non-prosecution and the electricity was again
disconnected. All these facts have not been disclosed
in the writ petition.
3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in
pursuance to the inspection report dated 29.4.1992 a
case of theft was made out along with load violation
and a bill of Rs. 8,77,296.29 was raised in the month of
September, 1992. This bill was raised as per the
tariff provisions prevalent at that time in terms
whereof the bill had to be raised for a period of 3
years preceding from the date of inspection. The
electricity had been restored on 14.10.92 in pursuance
to the orders of the Civil Judge for domestic purposes
or a load of 0.25 KW and supply again was disconnected
on 14.7.1994. The bill is stated to have been raised
on the following basis after approval from the
competent authority:-
i) The petitioner has been charged on load basis
from 11th March, 1992 to 17th June, 1992 i.e., the date
of the removal of the meter and lodging of the FIR.
ii) From 14th October, 1992 to 14th July, 1994,
the petitioner has been charged on domestic tariff on
the load of 0.5 KW and six months M.G. have been
charged after the disconnection of the supply and meter
rent up to date;
iii) The petitioner has also been charged LPSC
of Rs. 9368.10 paise on F.A.E. bill plus 3% LPSC from
October, 1993 to March, 1999 per month plus 1-1/2 LPSC
per month from April, 1998 till date for an amount of
Rs. 8,77,296.29.
4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that
the provisional demand had been subsequently withdrawn
and the bill revised in terms whereof the net amount
payable is Rs. 30,55,573.27. A copy of the bill has
been annexed to the counter affidavit. It is also
stated that the connected load of 37.246 KW was being
used for industrial purposes and that is the reason why
bill is of such a high value which includes the
parameters as mentioned above. It is stated that it is
not a case of only tampering of glass but also of
direct tapping for industrial purpose. This is
apparent from the discrepencies mentioned in the notice
dated 15.6.1992 which is as under:-
1. Phase of electric supply directly for
working three phase supply.
2. Tampering with glass of meter no.343571
against K.No.7974275.
3. Tampering of service line against
K.No. 84-145/63.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to
contend that there was no explanation for such a high
value when the connected load was only 0.25 KW.
However, on a specific question being put the learned
counsel had no answer as to why there was no disclosure
in the writ petition of the earlier suit proceedings or
of the fact that why the suit was not prosecuted
further.
6. The aforesaid facts show that the petitioner
approached the civil court and obtained a reconnection
of the electricity, failed to pay electricity charges
and thereafter did not pursue the suit and let the suit
be dismissed. In my considered view this itself is an
abuse of the process of court proceedings.
7. The petitioner has also not further come with
clean hands before this court. The petitioner has
failed to disclose the facts regarding the past
proceedings for which there is no explanation. The
petitioner is thus guilty of suppression of material
facts.
8. Even in respect of the merits of the controversy
it has been correctly explained in the counter
affidavit that the case of the petitioner was not one of
mere tampering with the glass and theft of electricity
but of direct theft also from direct tapping on 3rd
phase for using for industrial purposes and the
tampering of the service line. It was in fact found
that against an original sanctioned load of 0.25 KW the
connected load was 37.264 KW.
9. In view of the aforesaid I find no merit in the
writ petition and dismiss the same with costs of
Rs.5,000/-.
