1. Heard Mr. B.M. Vaishnav, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned advocate for the respondent electricity company.
2. The petition is taken out by the petitioner, seeking below mentioned relief and direction:
"12(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for (I) quashing the order of assessment dated 21/03/2011 amounting Rs.34,53,382.73 at Annexure 'D' issued for alleged theft of electricity under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (ii) quashing the compounding charges amounting to Rs.6,54,000.00, (iii) the refund of the entire amount of the order of assessment already paid up by the petitioner and (iv) paying the interest on the amount of the order of assessment already paid up by the petitioner or alternatively (i) quashing the order of assessment dated 21/03/2011 amounting to Rs.34,53,382.73 at Annexure 'D' issued for alleged theft of electricity under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (ii) quashing the compounding charges amounting to Rs.6,54,000.00, (iii) the refund of the entire amount of the order of assessment already paid up by the petitioner, (iv) paying the interest on the amount of the order of assessment already paid up by the petitioner and directing for making the assessment either under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorised use of electricity, if the petitioner could, at all, be made subjected to such assessment or under regulation 6.1.11 of the Electricity Supply Code for a stopped meter."
3. It emerges from the record and submissions by the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent that upon inspection of the installation of electric meter in the premises of the petitioner company, it was noticed by the respondent electricity company that the petitioner had indulged into act of commission of theft of electricity as contemplated under Section 135 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the meter was removed and was sent for testing. Subsequently, the process of meter testing with reference to the allegation of theft was undertaken in presence of the representative of the petitioner. After the testing the process was completed, the report was submitted by the laboratory. According to the respondent, the report suggested that some unauthorised acts were committed by some human agency the condition in which the meter was found and the wire connections were found, cannot be attributed to mechanical fault.
4. At this stage, in the midst of dictation of order, learned advocate for the petitioner has made request to permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition.
5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent electricity company that after the laboratory/testing report, supplementary bill of Rs.34,53,382/- was raised and the petitioner has already paid the said amount. Learned advocate for the respondent electricity company has also submitted that the respondent electricity company has already lodged an FIR and that, therefore, the proceedings under Section 154 would commence in pursuance of the said FIR.
6. It is in light of the said submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent electricity company that the learned advocate for the petitioner, as aforesaid, requested for permission to withdraw the petition. Permission to withdraw the petition is granted. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top