Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4883 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S A.R. Dwelling Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner against a payment of Rs. 55,47,252/- imposed by the authorities of the Pashimanchal Viddut Vitaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as Nigam).
The petitioner company is running a hotel/lodge in District Meerut. An inspection, of the hotel premises run by the petitioner, was conducted by the joint team of Nigam and police officials on 4.10.2017. The aforesaid inspection revealed that the hotel of the petitioner was using illegal electricity cable for committing theft of electricity. It was found that the cables were cleverly concealed, but on detailed investigation, the illegal cable was unearthed. Consequent to such findings of the inspection team, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner as Case Crime No. 307 of 2017 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act on 5.10.2017. Additionally, an assessment was made under the Electricity Act and a demand was raised against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an objection to the aforesaid demand and the same has been rejected by the order impugned.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner did not commit any theft of electricity. He also contends that the petitioner was in Jail from 12.9.2017 to 27.10.2017 in Case Crime No. 87 of 2017, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut. As such, the petitioner could not have committed the theft of electricity.
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground on which the finding of the joint inspection team regarding the theft of electricity and the findings in the order impugned can be disputed. Further findings returned in the impugned order are well reasoned and based on unimpeachable material in the record. The petitioner has failed to dispute the aforesaid finding and the material in the record by any credible evidence or pleadings. Only bald denials have been made which are not sufficient to vitiate the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Ravi Prakash