JUDGMENT
Bhagwati Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the orders of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,63,816/- for the alleged theft and misuse of the electricity.
2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Royal Finishing Works. On 17.5.1997 a vigilance checking was made at the factory of the petitioner. This checking was effected without any notice to the petitioner as required under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’). A report was prepared by the party and the signatures of Rikhab Raj were obtained alleging him to be the consumer. A copy of the said report dated 17.5.1997 has been produced as Annex. 2 with the writ petition. It would be worth while to mention here that according to the petitioner Rikhab Raj was not the authorised Manager of the factory. He was a small employee and had no business to communicate on behalf of the petitioner. However, on being pointed out to the learned Counsel that the cheque which is alleged to have been handed over to the R.S.E.B. for Rs. 2,50,000/- signed by the father of the petitioner Ashok Lodha was sent under the signatures of Rikhab Raj. learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfactorily establish the point that Rikhab Raj had no authority to act on behalf of the petitioner.
Annex. 2 the inspection report in its original version has a hand written endorsement to the fact that ^^iqfyl dk;Zokgh u djs jkf’k tek djk jgk gwW A fj[kc jkt 45 mej^^ but such endorsement is not occurring on the type copy furnished by the learned Counsel. This lapse was also pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner but no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the learned Counsel for the petitioner of this lapse also.
3. It has been claimed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was a vested interest of the Assistant Engineer in making a wrong report about the commission of theft and, therefore, Ex.2 was made against him. The petitioner was out of station during this period. The Assistant Engineer threatened the employees of the petitioner of criminal action and advised them to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compounding charges to the Board. The employees of the Board obtained a cheque from the petitioner’s father and handed it over to the Assistant Engineer on the condition that if the petitioner did not approve this demand, the cheque will be taken back. This cheque was put for encashment against the advice of the petitioner’s father.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the action of the respondent department is illegal so also the action of the Settlement Committee which has ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that the order passed by the respondent for composition amount dated 29.5.1997 is ex facie illegal because the same has been passed by the respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order of composition has been finalised without showing the petitioner any basis for calculation. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit a theft,
5. learned Counsel has further asserted that mere breaking of the seal of MIP box does not lead to inference that there was any theft of electricity. learned Counsel has submitted that before being prosecuted for theft the respondent Board should have ensured that they can establish and prove the fact of theft. The petitioner has further urged that a demand of Rs. 2,63,816/- cannot be raised against the petitioner because the electrical inspector or the meter readers of the respondent Board regularly came to the petitioner’s unit and taken the reading of the meter.
6. learned Counsel has further submitted that in view of Sections 39 and 44(C) of the Act no case of any sort of theft of electricity can be made, inasmuch as the petitioner itself has informed the respondents about the factum of breaking of the seal of MIP Box.
7. The respondent Board has contested the case of the petitioner. It has been contended that the case set up by the petitioner cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The points raised by the petitioner require to be established by leading evidence. The respondent Board has contended that the inspection on 17.5.1997 was done by the officers of respondent, in presence of the father of the petitioner and his representative Rikhab Raj. It cannot be said that Rikhab Raj was an unauthorised person. He is an employee of the petitioner as has been admitted by the petitioner himself.
8. During the course of the arguments, it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was forwarded under the signatures of Rikhab Raj. Had he been an unauthorised person, a cheque of such a high magnitude value of Rs. 2,50,000/- could not have been forwarded under his signatures. The communication Annex. 1 as has been alleged by the petitioner, was never sent and has only been created by the petitioner to raise a point. As and when vigilance checking takes place no prior intimation is necessary. When fall in consumption in KWH was observed in Meter installed at the premises of the petitioner’s factory, by comparing the previous records, vigilance checking took place and report was prepared.
9. At the time of vigilance checking the petitioner’s representative admitted the fact of theft and requested the vigilance party not to initiate police proceedings against them. Thus, there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to first admit the guilt and then raise the question of principles of natural justice. Having agreed to deposit the compounding charges he cannot now turn around and say that he was not liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. Omission to protest on the part of the petitioner’s father present at the time of the vigilance checking shows the design of the petitioner.
10. The whole exercise was to save the disconnection of the petitioner firm by giving a cheque because the factory was liable to be disconnected on account of theft of electricity. Disconnection was, therefore, avoided by the petitioner.
11. learned Counsel for the petitioner in his arguments has raised that since the police report has been lodged a double jeopardy has been created against the petitioner. But while raising this ground the learned Counsel for the petitioner has lost sight of the fact that compounding amount was offered by the petitioner itself at the time of inspection. The cheque given by the father of the petitioner was dishonoured by the Bank on 17.5.1997. Therefore, disconnection was made on 22.5.1997. Such dishonouring was at the request of the petitioner. learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments has submitted that due to the conduct of the respondent he has got the payment of the cheque stopped. No such fact of the conduct of the respondent was pointedly placed before the Court which would just indicate that the respondents have acted in an irresponsible manner.
12. The petitioner offered the cheque on 17.5.1997. The cheque was presented to the Bank, which was returned by the Bank on 20.5.1997. The disconnection was made on 22.5.1997 and a first information report was lodged on 2.6.1997. The sequence of dates shows that when the petitioner was found to have committed theft, offered for compounding, subsequently refused to pay the compounding amount by stopping payment of the cheque. The department was left with no other option then to proceed against it by issuing notice and lodging the first information report. learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that in the inspection report it has been mentioned in the inspection finding that this has been observed that “register case with police for theft of Electricity or compounding charges be recovered. As per Board Order No. 151 dt. 17.1.1995.” and has contended that the first information report having been lodged this order has been flouted. learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that sequence of dates referred to hereinabove suggests that the first information report was lodged only after the petitioner advised the Bank to dishonour the cheque and in this back ground it cannot be said that there had been flouting of the remarks made in the vigilance report.
13. I have considered the rival submissions raised by both the learned Counsel at the Bar and have also perused the record.
14. This fact stands out boldly that at the time when the vigilance checking took place father and a representative of the petitioner Rikhab Raj were present. When theft was discovered by the vigilance party, compounding was offered by the father of the petitioner and Rikhab Raj. The offer of compounding was not an empty offer. It was coupled with a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/-. If the petitioners represented at the time of vigilance inspection that they are ready and willing to go for compounding and in fact, offered a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- then it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that no proceedings as required under the law were taken. Immediately at the point when the checking took place the petitioner’s reaction was that he wanted to compound. Subsequently, “he became wiser and ordered for stoppage of payment. This conduct of the petitioner was sought to be explained by the petitioner that the conduct of the respondents was not such so as to warrant the continuance of the intent of the petitioner for compounding. Nothing was pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to what necessitated to withdraw their offer of compounding. The sequence of events shows that the inspection took place on 17.5.1997. On that day itself the cheque was offered by the petitioner. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation of the cheque to the Bank on 20.5.1997, when the cheque was dishonoured the other actions followed i.e. disconnection of electricity on 22.5.1997 and lodging of the first information report on 2.6.1997. Use of these methods of disconnection and lodging of the first information report, thus, cannot be seen against the respondents as they were necessitated by the act of the petitioner himself. He having offered for compounding has withdrawn the same and, thus, has tried to blow hot and cold together. Therefore, nothing wrong is seen in lodging the first information report and disconnecting the electric connection of the petitioner. The questions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. The petitioner has already availed his chances before the Board Level Settlement Committee. They have considered his case and has found against him. In these circumstances, this Court feels that there is no case made out by the petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. In the result, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.