Jagpal Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2147 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 21st April, 2011

+                                 W.P.(C) 2971/2007

         JAGPAL SINGH                                          ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Rajeshwar Dagar, Advocate

                                      Versus

         BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD & ORS.        ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate for
                              R-1.
                              Mr. Shoaib Haider, Advocate for
                              Mr. Najmi Waziri, Advocate for
                              GNCTD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported              No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the direct theft assessment bills in the sum of

`1,61,876/- and `2,09,903/- raised by the respondent on the petitioner. This

Court while issuing notice of the petition, vide order dated 25 th 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 30 th May,

2007 the petitioner was directed to make payment of the first installment of

`1,50,000/- on 15th June, 2007, the second installment of `1,50,000/- on

15th July, 2007 and the balance amount on or before 15 th August, 2007.

Pleadings have been completed and the counsels have been heard.

2. 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.

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.

4. 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 `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.

5. 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.

6. The SDM reported that both numbers i.e. C-12/9 and 364 Dadan

Mohalla, Badarpur are of the same property.

7. 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.

8. A further affidavit dated 21st August, 2009 came to be filed by the

SDM reiterating that both addresses pertain to the same property.

9. 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 therefor.

10. Though the aforesaid order of the Dy. Commissioner has attained

finality but the counsel for the respondent relies on Radhey Shyam Bansal

v. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. 148 (2008) DLT 462 holding that the

respondent cannot be expected to accept the compounding fee without the

theft bill being discharged.

11. 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.

12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. I refrain from imposing any

costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 21st April, 2011 pp..