Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to have purchased the property of Hotel Vivek in the year, 2007 and re-named it as Hotel Kanishka. Electricity meter was also transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser, i.e., Shri Vishal Pandey. He has deposited the required amount for transfer of the Electricity meter in his own name. It appears that thereafter electricity raid was conducted on 11.10.2007 by the Electricity Department in the premises of petitioner's Hotel Kanishka and a report was prepared by the officers of the raiding party inter alia, that the petitioner had indulged in the theft of electricity by way of cable wire which was directly attached from the electricity poll to the main connection. An F.I.R. was also lodged on 13.10.2007 against younger brother of the petitioner that he had indulged in the theft of electricity. On 16.10.2007, the petitioner had deposited the shaman shulk (compounding charges) and an assessment bill was raised by the electricity company amounting to Rs. 88,568, half of which was paid by the petitioner. On 26.2.2008 appeal was preferred by the petitioner inter alia, that the proceedings had been initiated against his younger brother but not against the person in whose name meter connection has been. The petitioner and his younger brother are residing jointly with the family in the same premises and there is no division in the family. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the electricity cable was found to be illegally connected from the main electric meter of the petitioner in respect of which an agreement was executed on 4.4.2007 between the electricity department and the petitioner for payment of electricity dues. Recovery in respect of illegal connection and theft of energy have been assessed amounting to Rs. 88,568, out of which Rs. 44,285 has already been deposited by the consumer on 26.2.2008 in part compliance thereof. The petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount of Rs. 44,283 vide order dated 4.9.2008 appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
(3.) THE only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the proceedings have been initiated against his younger brother, hence he is not liable to pay the amount as he has not been heard before ordering recovery of dues against him. In this regard notice may be had that electricity cable was found prima facie to be connected by the raiding party from the electricity pole to the main electric meter of the petitioner which is theft of energy. An agreement in respect of transfer of electric meter in the name of the petitioner has already been executed between the previous landlord and him on 4.7.2007. The younger brother of the petitioner is living with him and helping the business of the petitioner in the hotel premises and was representing him in the proceedings. Technically the meter may be in the name of the petitioner but as the family is living jointly in the same premises, and there is no division of the family, the petitioner may pay the electricity dues as assessed and recover the same from his brother if there is any division or family partition.;