Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9074 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gupta Alias Babban Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Devesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 5, Sri Mahmood Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by Appellate Tribunal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application was made for electricity connection for 2 K.W. in the year 2013. According to him, the said connection was not provided and the inspection which is alleged to have been conducted on 07.03.2017 wherein it was found that petitioner was unauthorisedly using electricity supply. Provisional assessment was made thereafter final assessment was made by electricity department. Against which petitioner has filed an appeal which has been rejected by order impugned.
Sri Mahmood Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Department submitted that it is not an isolated case of theft done by petitioner but it was second time when petitioner was caught using electicity without connection. It is submitted that theft of elctricity was being made through the main LT line and at the time of raid, electricity load was found to be 4.8 K.W. and number of electrical items were found running such as A.C., Washing Machine, Inverter, Refrigrator, Fans, T.V., L.E.D., Cooler, Submersible Pump etc. It is further contended that not only electricity theft was being done by petitioner in the said supply but also it was being done by brother of the petitioner as well as 6 tenants who were in occupation of the premises.
Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, I find it to be a classic case of theft of electricity by petitioner where not only the electricity was used for the personal use of the petitioner's family but in fact his brother and other tenants who were in occupation of the same premises were also using the electricity from the cable of the petitioner which was connected to the main LT line. No interference is required.
In view of above, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 V.S.Singh