- (1.) The Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited ( for short 'the Nigam') is in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction by impugning the demand notice/memo No.59/CA dated 12.1.2005 issued by the Nigam whereby a penalty of Rs.1,24,71,185/- on account of alleged theft of electricity energy had been served upon the plaintiff-respondent. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent is a consumer of the Nigam and had an electricity connection bearing account No.LS-8 for a sanctioned load of 999.612 K.W. The connection had been released on 12.5.2001. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent had been paying the energy charges regularly and the last bill that had been issued to him for an amount of Rs.4,05,182/- had been duly paid vide receipt No.366 dated 24.10.2004. It is pleaded that the premises of the plaintiff-respondent had been checked by the staff of the Nigam on 12.1.2005 wherein the checking party had noticed that there had been an alleged theft of electricity. On the basis thereof, the impugned demand notice dated 12.1.2005 had been issued. The plaintiff-respondent firm contended that there had been no theft of energy-electricity as alleged and as such, the impugned demand notice dated 12.1.2005 was illegal, null and void and contrary to the circulars issued by the Nigam itself.
(3.) Upon notice, the defendants filed a joint written statement taking a plea that the plaintiff-respondent firm was an habitual offender. It was submitted that even on an earlier occasion also, it had been found on 24.1.2004 that the electricity had been consumed by it by virtue of illegal means. At that point of time, a checking report had been prepared and a penalty amount to the tune of Rs.75,28,263/- had been assessed and a notice of assessment, bearing No.151 dated 25.1.2004, had been served upon the plaintiff-respondent to make the payment. The plaintiff had then also not made the payment and rather filed a civil suit against the recovery of the penal amount but the same was dismissed. Upon appeal having been filed, the Additional District Judge, Panipat had passed orders dated 13.2.2004 directing the deposit of an amount of Rs.30 lacs and as yet, the remaining amount is outstanding against the plaintiff-respondent. It was further submitted that the premises of the plaintiff-respondent firm were again found consuming electricity energy by illegal means on 12.1.2005 and accordingly, the impugned demand memo No.59/CA dated 12.1.2005 had been served upon the plaintiff-respondent to make payment of Rs.1,24,71,185/-.;