The Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a ₹39,641 compounding notice under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, setting aside the notice due to violation of the principle of natural justice.
Impugned notice dated 17th October, 2005 set aside. Writ petition allowed with the above said decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP - 9343/2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDTCA TURF FOR RAJAS THAN A T JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PR77ON NO, 9343/2005
Jagmohan Son of Shri Bal Chand, Chela Kandas, aged about 30 years, by caste, Swami, Resident of Palsana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Sub-Tehsil Palsana, DistricT Sikar.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
Distt. Sikar.
3. Assistant Engineer (O&M), Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam
Limited, Sub-Tehsil Palsana, Distt. Sikar.
Tehsil Palsana, Distt. Sikar.
Dote of Order : 04h November, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDAR1
Mr.Nitin Jain, for the petitioner. Mr.Abhishek Sharma, for the respondent/s.
BY THE CWRT :
By this writ petition, a challenge is pade to the notice
2
dated 17th October, 2005, whereby,-a, demand for a sum of Rs.39,641/- was raised by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 28th October, 1998, electricity meter of the petitioner was checked by the respondents and, thereupon, compounding amount of Rs.7892/- was imposed with a direction to deposit it within a period of seven days. The petitioner deposited the said amount immediately thereupon. He was shocked to receive a bill for Rs.39,641/- after lapse of almost four years. Prior to raising bill for the aforesaid amount, no notice was given to the petitioner. The respondents issued a notice dated 17th October, 2005 that if the amount is not deposited within a period of seven days, electricity connection would not be continued. It is stated that once the demand raised by respondents has been satisfied, no amount could have been asked or demanded further without an opportunity of hearing thus impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that initially determination of amount at Rs.7892/- was on provisional basis and otherwise, not correctly determined by the officer concerned. The proper determination of the compounding amount
3
was made by the audit party and, accordingly, a demand of reminder amount was issued in a case where admittedly there was a theft of electricity. In view of above, interference in the impugned order may not be made because initial amount was wrongly determined by the officer.
I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts of the case show that on 8' October, 1998, petitioner's electricity meter was checked and case of electricity theft was found. The respondents issued a letter indicating amount of compounding charges with'the direction to deposit it within a period of seven days. In pursuance of the letter dated 2gth October, 1998, the petitioner deposited the amount thereupon. It is after a lapse of four years that a bill of demanded amount was raised followed by notice dated 17th October, 2005. The petitioner had initially approached the civil court but the suit thereupon was returned to the petitioner for want of jurisdiction of civil court. It was, however, with liberty to present it in the court having jurisdiction.
The documents available on record does not show a
CWP - 9343/2005
4
notice for hearing to the petitioner before demand of additional amount of Rs.39,641/-. It is moreso when, earlier determination of compounding amount was made by the respondents themselves and had been satisfied by the petitioner. After a lapse of four years, if demand is raised, it was expected from the respondents to hear the petitioner and to disclose the basis of determination of compounding amount. The perusal of the documents does not reveal as to how the additional amount has been determined, rather, as per the respondents, amount aforesaid was determined by the audit party.
The fact further remains that when initial amount was determined at Rs.7892/- and has been satisfied by the petitioner, how additional demand can be raised by the respondents. If there was a default in the calculation, it was required to be clarified and action should have been taken against the officer concerned, but, on instructions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no action has been taken.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and is otherwise contrary to the initial order passed on 2gth October, 1998. It is moreso when, initial order was
passed by the respondents themselves after determination of compounding amount and is not said to be on tentative or on provisional basis. It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that no action has been taken against the officer, who said to have defaulted in calculating amount on theft of electricity.
For the reasons given above, L find merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, impugned notice dated 17'h October, 2005 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned notice imposing an additional electricity theft compounding demand violated the principle of natural justice.
Whether a prior determination of compounding charges which was satisfied by the petitioner can be contradicted by a subsequent demand for a higher amount without opportunity of hearing.
Jagmohan Son of Shri Bal Chand
Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam Limited
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
