AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of provisional assessment order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P-2), final assessment order dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda (exercising the powers of the appellate authority), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,74,191/- for unauthorized use of electricity.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner before passing the provisional assessment order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P-2) and the final order dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure P-3). It is further his contention that even the appellate authority has failed to take note of this and has proceeded to decide the appeal on untenable grounds. We have gone through the impugned orders with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner and are of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the house of the petitioner was under construction when on 13.04.2007 at about 4.40 P.M. the site was inspected by the Electrical Engineer Works, Bathinda. The team consisted of Sr. Executive Engineer/AEE Enforcement II, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda, who was assisted by an AEE and a Junior Engineer as well as a Security Personnel. During the investigation of the site direct kundi (wire from the main line) was found and on assessment of the load, the same was found to be 8.109 Kilowatt. Videography has been taken of the above said site and the same was kept with the Area Junior Engineer to be used as evidence against the petitioner. Mason Balbir Singh, who was present at the site, was also informed of the checking, who had signed the said report. It was further observed in the said report that this was a clear case of electricity theft, copy of this inspection report is appended as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition. This report clearly depicts that theft of electricity was being done at the behest of the petitioner as the construction of the house was on where various motors and cutters inducing water motor, lamps, fans and grinder were being used.
(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he had applied for a domestic connection for his residential premises vide application dated 20.04.2007. This contention of the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner took action of applying for a connection only when he was caught red handed on 13.04.2007, along with the proof of videography that electricity was being consumed by him directly from the main line without obtaining the electricity connection or installing the electricity meter as required to consume electricity and when the order of provisional assessment was passed on 16.04.2007. This amounts to acceptance of the fact that the electricity was being consumed by the petitioner without having a valid connection. The contention raised by the petitioner that he was not heard at the time of passing of the order dated 16.04.2007 vide which the provisional assessment of Rs. 1,74,191/- has been ordered, cannot be accepted as on 13.04.2007, the mason, who was working at the site of the petitioner and who has appended his signatures on the inspection report, was informed. In any case, this was only a provisional assessment and thereafter, the final assessment order dated 27.04.2007 was passed.;