Parvitiya Vikas Sansthan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2143 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

             Writ Petition No. 2756 of 2018 (M/S)

Parvitiya Vikas Sansthan.                          ..... Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.                         .....Respondents

Present:
      Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
      Mr. D. Barthwal, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and
      3.

                      Date of order : 18.07.2022

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

(Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following order:-

The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 passed by respondent no. 4- District Magistrate, Nainital and order dated 30.10.2015 passed by respondent no. 2-Executive Engineer (Prescribed Authority), Ramnagar, Nainital (contained as annexure no. 1 and 8 respective to the writ application).

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is consumer of electricity and has taken electricity connection from the Electricity Distribution Division, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Ramnagar, District Nainital. The premises of the petitioner was raided by the officers of the licensee and he was found by the licensee to have committed theft of the electricity, and, therefore, he was served with a disconnection notice. He made representation to respondent no. 2. The petitioner also filed a writ application being WPMS No. 173 of 2013 in which interim order was passed on 29.01.2013. On 30.10.2015, respondent no. 2 passed order no. 2945 and

directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,86,450/-. On the same day, another order bearing no. 2980 was passed by respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,98,382/-. The order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 123 of the Electricity Act, 2003, before the District Magistrate, Nainital, and it was finally decided on 31.05.2018, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Magistrate that is respondent no. 4 has not given any reasons for the conclusion he has arrived at except referring the submissions in the impugned judgment. It is apparent to take note of following paras of the final order passed by the learned District Magistrate, which are quoted below in verbatim and binocularly :

ÞmHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquus ds mijkUr rRdkyhu ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 30-11-2015 ls fo|qr foHkkx ds mDr of.kZr i= ls lacaf/kr olwyh dks LFkfxr djrs gq, vihy ds vfxze fu.kZ; rd fo|qr la;kstu lqpk: fd, tkus ds funsZ'k fn, o vihydrkZ dks funsZf'kr fd;k fd bl vof/k esa izfrekg fo|qr chtdks dks Hkqxrku fu;fer :i ls fd;k tk; rFkk lquokbZ gsrq vxyh frfFk fu;r dh xbZ rnksijkUr fnukad 04-12-2015 dks iqu% lquokbZ mijkUr vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, fo|qr foHkkx dk vujks/k Lohdkj djrs gq, vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 127¼2½ ds vUrXkZr vkjksfir /kujkf'k vihydrkZ ls tek djokbZ tk; o iwoZ vkns'k fnukad 30-11-2015 ds fdz;kUo;u dks vfxze vkns'kksa rd LFkfxr fd;k x;kA mHk; i{kksa dks foLrkj ls lquus ,oa i=koyh esa miyC/k vfHkysa[kksa ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; izdk'k esa vkrk gS fd vihydrkZ dh dqy ns;rk uksfVl fn, tkus dh frfFk dks 23]86][email protected]& :Ik;s Fkh ftlesa ls ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vuqikyu esa :i;k 5]00][email protected]& fjV ;ksftr djrs le; tek fd;k tkuk rFkk :i;k 18]86][email protected]& dk [email protected] Hkkx vFkkr :i;k 9]43][email protected]& foHkkx }kjk Lo;a tek fd, tkus dk mYys[k vius vkifRr i= fnukad 26-12-2016 esa fd;k x;k gSA

blls ;g Li'V gksrk gS fd vihydrkZ }kjk 14]43][email protected]& :i;k orZeku le; rd tek fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj fo|qr foHkkx ds vihydrkZ dks izsf'kr uksfVl fnukad 30-10-2015 esa bafxr /kujkf'k :i;k 23]86][email protected]& ds lkis{k :i;k 9]43][email protected]& dh ns;rk curh gS lkFk gh jktLo fu/kkZj.k dh /kujkf'k ij foHkkxh; fu;ekuqlkj yxus okys ljpktZ dh ns;rk vihydrkZ ij curh gSAß

4. It is apparent from the record that the learned District Magistrate, Nainital, has not given any finding on the objections raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order is not a speaking one. The order has been passed without giving reasons, therefore, the same is not sustainable.

5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.05.2018 passed by respondent no. 4 and order dated 30.10.2015 passed by respondent no. 2 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned District Magistrate. The parties are directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Nainital, on 22.08.2022 and present copy of this order. On such an event, the learned District Magistrate, shall restore the original appeal to file in its original number and heard and dispose of the matter within 45 days therefrom by speaking and reasoned order.

6. Urgent certified copy of the order be provided as per rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

PV