1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11216/2008. M/s.S.M.A.Stones. VERSUS Assistant Engineer (O&M), JVVNL, Kota & Others. 16.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.D.K.Soral, for the petitioner. Mr.Bipin Gupta, for the respondents. ***** The matter comes up on the application No.45080 submitted by the petitioner with the prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.2,11,421/-. Since the petition itself can be disposed of, the parties were heard on the merits of the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure-4) passed by the Assistant Engineer, respondent No.1, by which a demand was made against the petitioner on account of the alleged theft of electricity to the extent of Rs.11,20,034/-, as would be evident from the Annexure-4. This court while issuing notices to the respondents taking note of the provisions of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, made it a condition precedent for entertaining the petition that the writ petition would be entertained subject to the petitioner 2 depositing 1/3rd of the amount assessed under Annexure-4. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,73,345/- with the respondents in terms of the interim order passed by this court on 23.10.2008. The petitioner has now submitted the order Annexure-8 dated 17.11.2008 wherein, the respondents in para 2 of the order have held as follows:- “2. The VCR drawn was for low voltage experienced at the meter terminal of R Phase and not for the magnat tampers. The assessment made for 28 months under order No.JPR5-345 for electricity theft was wrong because it was not a case of electricity theft but it was a case of defective metering equipment, which should have been assessed properly for the consumption recorded by the meter for last 6 months treating the same to have been recorded on 2 phases only and 50% of the recorded consumption 32,320 units for last 6 months i.e. 16,160 units needs to be charged extra at single tariff. Thus, 16,160 X 4.15 (Rs.3,75 ND + Rs.0.40 ED)= Rs.67,064.00 are required to be charged against the VCR drawn by XEN (Vig.), Ramgang Mandi. Therefore, a total of Rs.94,860.00 + Rs.67,064.00 = Rs.1,61,924.00 only shall be required to be charged from the consumer.” In view of the above, the liability of the petitioner was assessed as Rs.1,61,924/- in all whereas the petitioner has deposited Rs.3,73,345/- under the order of this court dated 23.10.2008. 3 In the present application No.45080, the petitioner has prayed that since the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,73,345/- with the respondents in terms of the interim order passed by this court on 23.10.2008 and the liability of the petitioner having been assessed as only Rs.1,61,924/- in all, an amount of Rs.2,11,421/- may be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner is a regular consumer instead of directing the respondents to refund the aforesaid amount, the respondents may be directed to adjust the amount of Rs.2,11,421/- which is lying with the respondents against future consumption and bills which may be raised by the respondents against the petitioner in future. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be just and proper and in the facts and circumstances, while allowing the writ petition and the application No.45080 submitted by the petitioner, it is hereby directed that the demand raised against the petitioner vide order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure-4), which was challenged in the present writ petition, shall stand quashed in view of the order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondents. It is further directed that since the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.3,73,345/- and the total liability of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.1,61,924/- in all, the petitioner would be entitled to 4 a credit of Rs.2,11,421/-. The aforesaid amount shall be adjusted against the future consumption and bills of the petitioner and the petitioner would be liable to receive credit of the excess amount and only after the entire amount of Rs.2,11,421/- has been exhausted shall the petitioner be liable to pay to the respondents. Subject to the above, the writ petition, the stay application and the application No.45080 stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.