- (1.) The petitioner is an ex-serviceman, running a flour mill in the name and style of M/s. Arya Atta Chakki at Sunaria Road, Rohtak since 1996, to earn his livelihood. The premises is having the Commercial supply electricity connection bearing a/c 1826 of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as H.S.E.B.) now known as Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (hereinafter referred to as H.V.P.N.). On 26-5-1999, the premises of the petitioner were inspected by the officials of H.V.P.N.On checking, theft of energy was detected. The petitioner was held liable to pay compensation assessed at Rs. 72,384/- The electric supply of the petitioner was disconnected on 26-5-1999.
(2.) Although, the petitioner is disputing the liability in order to avoid further harassment, he deposited a sum of Rs. 36,500/-, being 50% of the penalty vide receipt No. 3150 dated 27-5-1999. For the remaining amount, the petitioner was prepared to furnish bank guarantee. Having received 50% of the penalty amount, FIR No. 437 dated 1-6-99 under Section 379, IPC and Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was registered against the petitioner with the police Station City Rohtak. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which was granted. The petitioner also approached the Civil Court, Rohtak and filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on 26-9-1999. The application for temporary injunction was also filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the electric supply of the petitioner. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rohtak by his order dated 5-7-99 restrained H.V.P.N.from disconnecting the electricity supply. H.V.P.N.thereafter filed an application dated 10-8-99 under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for staying the proceedings in the Civil suit and prayed for referring the dispute in the suit to Chief Engineer (Arbitration) H.S.E.B., Vidyut Nagar, Hisar. From the above, it becomes apparent that the matter is pending either in the civil Court or before the arbitrator.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a policy decision framed by the H.S.E.B./H.V.P.N.The relevant portion reads as under :- "The matter has further been reviewed and it has been decided by the Board that one time compensation from the consumers of different categories may be charged as per the rate mentioned below, where the theft of energy is detected and the offender comes forward voluntarily to settle and make payment of the amount of compensation. @@Sr. No. Category Compenation Charges 1.Domestic supply Rs. 5,000 per KW of Sanctioned load 2.Non-Domestic Rs. 1,000/- per KW of sanctioned load 3.Agricultural Rs. 750 per BHP of sanctioned load 4.L.T.Industrial supply Rs. 1,000/- per BHP of sanctioned load 5.IIT.Industrial supply Rs. 1500/- per KVA of sanctioned cpmtract demand @@ The above charges will be as one time compensation payable by the consumer to HSEB where theft is detected and will not be recoverable to using malpractice. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . "This FIR will be withdrawn and connection restored only after the deposit of the compensation stated above. "It has also been decided by the Board that the above criteria may also be applicable to the previous cases which are pending and for which FIRs have been lodged on account of detection of theft/pilferage of energy. The concerned SDOs (OP) may convey the above decision of the Board to such consumers and if the defaulting consumers wished to come forward for a final settlement of the matter, they can do so".;