MUJAMMIL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Admit the petition.
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention here that hitherto WPCRL No. 1151 of 2012 was filed in the same matter and this Court while allowing the same directed the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioner, if he deposits the charges of electricity pilferage calculated at the norms and parameters set up by Uttarakhand Power Regulation Commission. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that when this stay order was presented before the Executive Engineer, he ignored the same and handed over exorbitant charges to the tune of Rs. 5,27,945.40/ - for the said pilferage. It can significantly be noted that nowhere it has been explained as to on what basis this excessive amount has been calculated and the petitioner is being asked to pay the same. It is a quite unspeaking order. Connection of 20 KW had been sanctioned but he was found indulged in pilferage of more than sanctioned strength to run his industry.
(3.) LOOKING to non -speaking assessment order issued on 27.11.2012 by the Executive Engineer, the amount is reduced to the extent of 60% of the said amount calculated by Executive Engineer. He is ordered to permit the petitioner to deposit 60% of the impugned amount positively and explain under what circumstances he did not acknowledge the order issued by this Court on 01.12.2012.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.