Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the provisional assessment order dated 24.3.15 passed by the Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JWNL) creating the demand for compounding and civil liability charges quantified at Rs. 7,62,541/ - and decision dated 24.2.15 of VCR Monitoring & Reviewing Committee, whereby the proceeding initiated for settlement of dispute, stands dropped. Further prayer is made in terms that the respondents may be directed to regularise the electricity connection of the petitioner as per circular dated 28.2.13. The petitioner, an agriculturist, by way of an application applied for installation of electricity connection in his agriculture field situated at the periphery of village Badela. In response to the demand notice issued by the Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, Upani, Sri Dungargarh, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 77,060/ - on 19.5.14. Admittedly, no electricity connection has been released in favour of the petitioner till this date.
(2.) A vigilance checking was made by the vigilance team of JVVNL at the agriculture field of the petitioner, which found that the petitioner was indulged in unauthorised use of electricity by installing his own transformer with the load 53 HP. The vigilance checking report was prepared and a provisional assessment order dated 24.3.15 was passed by the Executive Engineer (Vigilance), JVVNL, Bikaner assessing the liability of compounding charges at Rs. 1,10,000/ - and civil liability charges at Rs. 6,52,541/ -. Accordingly, a demand of Rs. 7,62,541/ - has been created against the petitioner.
(3.) The petitioner vide representation dated 4.3.15 requested the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) not to lodge FIR against him. In the representation made, the petitioner categorically admitted that while installing his own transformer, he has indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. On the request being made by the petitioner, the dispute was placed before the VCR Monitoring & Reviewing Committee. The petitioner did not agree to deposit the amount as proposed. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated for settlement of the dispute were dropped. Hence, this petition.;