In the Civil Court at Ratia Distt. Fatehabad.

Gurvinder Vs. DHBVNL

Affidavit

I Gurvinder Singh S/o Nand Singh Resident of village Ratia DIstt.

Fatehabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

The Plaintiff submits as under:-

1. That there is an electric connection bearing account no. RAID-
1384 installed at Ratia Distt. Fatehabad in the name of GURVINDER
SINGH and the plaintiff has been using the said electric connection
and has been making the payment of all the electricity bills regularly
and there is nothing due against the plaintiff in respect of the said
electric connection, therefore, the plaintiff is consumer of the
defendants.
2. That now the defendants have issued to the plaintiff two notices
bearing memos no. H43/2017/998 and H43/2017/999 dated
20.06.2017 through which the defendants have demanded from the
plaintiff a sum of Rs. 31,605/- and Rs. 6,000/- for the purpose of loss
to the Nigam and compounding the offence on the basis of any
alleged checking, both notices are wrong, against law, against facts,
without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, without providing
any detail and as such the same are null and void and liable to be set
aside on the grounds mentioned below:-
(i) That the plaintiff has never been found indulging in theft of energy
and the plaintiff has never been found consuming electricity
dishonestly and the plaintiff never consumed, used or abstracted and
even never attempted to use, consume or abstract the electricity
dishonestly. There are no allegations whatsoever of any kind leveled
against the plaintiff in the impugned notices.
(ii) That the meter of the plaintiff has never been got tested from
the laboratory in the presence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also
not been given any notice or information in this regard by the
defendants and in case the defendants have allegedly got tested the
meter of the plaintiff from the laboratory in the absence of the plaintiff
then the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.
(iii) That no opportunity of being heard has been given to the
plaintiff before raising the impugned demand of huge amount on
account of alleged loss to the Nigam and alleged compounding of the
offence.
(iv) That the defendants were not authorized to raise the impugned
demand or to issue the impugned notices on the basis of any alleged
checking. Moreover, the instruction issued by the defendants have no
force of law.
3. That the defendants are not entitled to effect any recovery on the
basis of abovesaid notice against the plaintiff during the pendency of
the present suit and defendants must have given the provisional
notice under sec 126 of the electricity act enabling the plaintiff to file
the objections for appeal whereas by way of issuance of the impugned
notices under sec 135 of electricity act the plaintiff has been deprived
of his valueable rights of filling the objections or appeal against the
provisional assessment rights.
4. That as per sec 154(5) of the electricty act 2003, the defendents are
not authorized to levy any such penalty and to recover the same from
the plaintiff as only special court is authorized in this regard and that
too after launching of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and
after declaration to the fact the plaintiff is guilty as having committied

the theft of electricity and as such impugned notices are being without
jurisdiction and are null and void and are liable to set aside

Deponent
Verification:

Verified that the contents of paras no. 1 to 4 of the plaint are correct
and true to my knowledge and belief and the contents of rest paras
are believed to be correct
Deponent

Though: Shivi Garg & Mohit Goyal

Advocates Ratia