Está en la página 1de 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN

AT JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6684/2016

PETITIONER:
Lachoo Memorial College of Science & Technology
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
JVVNL & Ors.
****
REPLY TO WRIT PETITION ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
****
To
Honble the Chief Justice and His Lordships other Companion
Judges of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

The answering respondents named-above, most humbly and

respectfully submits the following reply to writ petition preferred by

the petitioner as under:

1. That the averments contained in para 1 of the writ petition are

not disputed being matter of record.


2. That the averments contained in para 2 of the writ petition are

not disputed, as the electricity connection was given by the

answering respondents in the name of petitioner bearing A/c

No. 0595 - 0038 with sanctioned load of 200 KW/with 150

KVA is concerned.

3. That the averments contained in para 3 of the writ petition are

denied in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. The answering

respondents respectfully submits that premises of the petitioner

was inspected by the Executive engineer (M&P), JdVVNL,

Jodhpur vide JIR No. 867/48 dated 30.06.2015 in routine

testing. The inspecting authority has reported that the ratio 20/5

of CT/PT Set no. 2475 exists in the premises while having

multiplier factor of 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the

concerned inspecting authority has noticed that the multiplier

factor of 4 was mentioned in the energy bills which were issued

to the petitioner but due to bona fide mistake on account of

computer software the energy bills for the period from January

2012 to July 2015 were issued to the petitioner with Multiplier

Factor 1 only instead of multiplier factor 4. Thereafter, being

aware with regard to mistake in calculation of energy bills with


multiplier factor of 1 instead of Multiplier factor of 4 the

answering respondents have recalculated the consumption on

the basis of multiplying factor of 4 and demanded a sum of Rs.

42,17,915.70/- from the petitioner for the period from January,

2012 to July, 2015.

4. That the averment contained in para 4 of the writ petition are

not admitted as alleged by the petitioner, it is respectfully

submitted that the above mentioned mistake(computer error) was

done due to computer software whereby the energy bills for the

period of from January, 2012 to July, 2015 were issued with

multiplying factor 1 instead of 4 and original consumption of

electricity by the petitioner was not recorded by the computer

software due to bona fide error only. The answering respondents

have found the mistake on 30.06.2015 in routine testing,

thereafter a letter no. 439 and 681 dated 20.05.2015 and

07.07.2015 respectively were sent by Assistant Engineer (B-III)

JVVNL. to the Superintending Engineer (IT), JVVNL. with a

request to take action with regard to recovery of difference

amount to be paid by the petitioner. The true and correct copy of


the letter dated 20.05.2015 and 07.07.2015 are submitted

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R/1 and ANNEXURE-R/2

collectively. Thereafter the assistant revenue engineer (B III),

JVVNL, Jodhpur has sent a show cause notice dated 21.09.2015

with regard to issuance of electricity bills with multiplying factor

1 instead of 4 , but no heed was paid by the petitioner. It would

be worthwhile to mention here that after following due process of

law the answering respondent have issued notice dated

10.05.2016 to the petitioner and directed to deposit the

difference amount i.e. Rs. 42,17,915/-, the demand raised by the

answering respondent is justified and fair in eyes of Law.

5. That the averments contained in para No. 5 is not admitted as

alleged, it is respectfully submitted that opportunity of hearing

has already been given to the petitioner through a letter dated

21.09.2015 and a notice dated 05.10.2016. It is pertinent to

mention here that on 05.10.2015 the petitioner has filed

objections in respect of the said notice and denied all averments

made therein.

6. That the averments made in para no. 6 of the writ pettion is

not admitted as alleged by the petitioner. It is respectfully


submitted that the the sub-divisional officer is fully authorized

for making recovery of less amount recovered from the

consumers. The demand was raised by applying correct

multiplying factor when it was noticed. Therefore, the demand

raised by the respondents cannot be said to be unjust or

improper in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. audi

7.

También podría gustarte