Dismissed

Gurpreet Kaurq v. Pseb and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2012CWP/14151/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, Gurpreet Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice for electricity theft and the subsequent dismissal of her appeal, alleging the demand was raised in connivance due to personal enmity. She contested the 12-month assessment period. The court dismissed the petition, holding that unauthorized use constituted theft, the 12-month cap under Section 126 was correctly applie

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the demand notice and dismissal of the appeal has been dismissed. No electricity theft charges recovered from the petitioner.

Gurpreet Kaurq Vs Pseb and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.14151 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.14151 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.2.2012

Gurpreet Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

PSEB and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present: Mr. P.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Swantantar Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶14

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 11.2.2009, Annexure P.2 whereby a demand of Rs.33,268/- has been raised on account of theft of electricity and also against the order dated 28.5.2010, Annexure P.3 whereby the appeal filed by her was dismissed.

¶16

Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner vide registered sale deed No.3872 dated 28.11.2008 purchased some land. She was willing to construct a house on the said land. Vide bill No.1502 dated 10.2.2009, she purchased the assembly material for the motor for making arrangement of water. According to the petitioner, due to enmity, her husband got issued the impugned notice dated 11.2.2009 in connivance with the official of the respondent-Board and raised a demand to the tune of Rs.33,268/- from her on the basis of false checking report allegedly conducted on 10.2.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an

¶17

CWP No.14151 of 2010

¶18

¶19

appeal on 25.2.2009 before respondent No.4 after depositing 50% of the total amount. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 28.5.2010, Annexure P.3. Hence this petition.

¶20

The respondents issued notice dated 11.2.2009 on the ground that the petitioner was using electricity unauthorisedly as she had taken no connection from the Electricity Board. The notice was issued under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, “the Act”) on the basis of checking report dated 10.2.2009.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 126 of the Act, the respondents had erroneously adopted 12 months period for determining the quantum of charges to be paid by the petitioner under the said provision.

¶22

Controverting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of this Court in Kamal Kumar v. PSEB , 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 815 to contend that in case of theft, the Court should not interfere. Reliance was placed on para 6 of the judgment, which reads thus:-

¶23

“6. The menace of kundi connections as it is generally known i.e. drawing electricity from the main line by putting wires without any authority or permission and without any meter, is quite prevalent and is being put to use by people without any fear. The honest consumers of electricity have to suffer for no fault of theirs due to low voltage, causing harm to electrical and electronic devices and appliances, frequent tripping and high electricity charges due to increased transmission losses because of such thefts. People like the petitioner misuse the leniency shown by the electricity officials and go to the extent of

¶24

CWP No.14151 of 2010

¶25

¶26

stealing electricity. This tendency needs to be curbed with a firm hand to discourage such like activities and tendencies gaining ground in the society. Court cannot be a party to illegal activities of people like the petitioner, rather the departmental officials deserve a word of appreciation and encouragement for taking steps to weed out prevalent illegal activities and tendencies of such like elements of the society. Strict action needs to be taken and no leniency deserves to be shown in such cases.”

¶27

It was further submitted that the assessment order was issued as per guidelines of the Electricity Board by using standard formula of multiplying load, days, hours and factor as per Annexure R-2 and calculations have been rightly made.

¶28

After giving thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶29

It was not disputed that the petitioner did not hold any valid electric connection and use of electricity by her was unauthorized which would amount to theft as the same was not permitted by the Board. After the purchase of the land by the petitioner and till the time construction was being raised, she had not obtained any electric connection. However, on checking conducted on 10.2.2009, she was found using electric connection. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no theft of electricity.

¶30

Adverting to the argument that the Board had wrongly calculated the amount by adopting 12 months period, it would be expedient

¶31

CWP No.14151 of 2010

¶32

¶33

to quote below Sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 126 of the Act, which read

¶34

thus:-

¶35

“ Section 126: (Assessment): - (1) to (4) xx xx xx

¶36

(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.]

¶37

(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to [twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-

¶38

(a) “assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;

¶39

(b) “unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity –

¶40

(i) by any artificial means; or

¶41

(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or

¶42

(iii) through a tampered meter; or

¶43

(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity

¶44

was authorised; or

¶45

(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the

¶46

supply of electricity was authorized.”

¶47

A bare reading of sub-section 5 of Section 126 of the Act shows that wherever the period of unauthorized use is not ascertainable, the

¶48

CWP No.14151 of 2010

¶49

¶50

maximum period of 12 months has been prescribed for calculating the amount of theft of energy. The respondent-Board after following the guidelines issued vide Annexure R-2 had calculated the amount of Rs.33,268/- as depicted in Annexure R-3 restricting the period of theft to 12 months as the exact period of theft was not known in the present case. No fault could be found with the orders impugned herein warranting interference by this Court.

¶51

11. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶52

February 01, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge

Gurpreet Kaurq v. Pseb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Kaurq v. Pseb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Aujla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Indra Rani Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward v (2), Ludhiana

Amar Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

M/S S.S. Company Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Bipasha Aviations Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kanchhi Ram Vs Municipal Corporation, Faridabad