Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40167 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Sangeeta Garg Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar,Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
This is a case of theft of electricity and subsequent assessment. Neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the counsel for the respondents are present.
We, however, find from the record that the writ petition was entertained and vide order dated 29.08.2016 the petitioner had been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 and submit a proof of such deposit on or before the next date fixed.
The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit.
The writ petition was dismissed twice in default and has been restored. Today again the same situation exists.
From the recall application filed earlier we find that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is alleged to have been deposited on 07.09. 2016.
From the order dated 29.08.2016 we find that the respondents were called upon to file an affidavit with regard to any notice having been served in respect of the provisional assessment. There is nothing on record to indicate about service of notice before the provisional assessment or final assessment. The issue appears to be coupled with one of theft of electricity.
In the event the FIR has been lodged then it is open to the petitioner to approach for compounding of the offence under Section 152 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
- 2 -
If no provisional assessment has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 then in that event the Executive Engineer, respondent no.2, shall be approached by the petitioner who shall pass an appropriate order with regard to final assessment, if not already passed. The recovery proceedings will abide by the order to be passed by the Executive Engineer.
The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 KA