Allowed

Harjinder Singh Dhillon v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2012CWP/19679/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking a decision on merits regarding allegations of electricity theft. Although prima facie evidence of tampering existed, the Court remitted the case back to the appellate authority to evaluate facts on merits while directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000 as security.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order of appellate authority; remitted matter to appellate authority to decide on merits; petitioner directed to deposit Rs.50,000.

Harjinder Singh Dhillon Vs Sub Divisional… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.19679 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision : 4.5.2012

¶4

Harjinder Singh Dhillon

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.S.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Brig.B.S.Taunque, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The premises of the petitioner were checked and it was found that even though his premises were entitled to a maximum load of 9.76 KW, he was connected to a load of 24.083 KW which led to the presumption that he was indulging in the theft of electricity. The raid was conducted in the presence of the son of the petitioner. Subsequently, the meter was checked in the ME Laboratory Verka on 2.6.2005 in the presence of the representative of the petitioner, namely, Shri Pargat Singh. It was found that all the seals of the meter were tampered with and were fake as they did not tally with the original impressions. On internal checking of the meter it was found that the petitioner had tampered with the digits of the meter and

¶14

C.W.P.No.19679 of 2009 -2-

¶15

scratch marks were found on the 100^th and 1000^th digits of the mete for suppressing the actual consumption of the electricity being fed to the meter. By virtue of Annexure P-2 initially a demand of Rs.36,242/- was raised upon the petitioner which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.67,848/- by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gohalwarh. The petitioner then preferred proceedings before the Disputes Settlement Committee which exercise was declined for want of jurisdiction. This led to the filing of appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate who dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. The grievance of the petitioner is that his appeal not having been decided on merits he has suffered a great prejudice and the appellate authority did not take into consideration the period spent by him when he had initiated proceedings before the Disputes Settlement Committee. He has further stated that there is variation in the demand which has been raised and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondents to decide the issue on merits more so when the appellate authority raised the demand of more than rupees one lac. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that he is willing to compound the matter with the respondents provided if he is given opportunity.

¶16

The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5, who has referred to the reply filed by them to contend that it was a clear case of theft of electric energy and and no indulgence ought to be shown in favour of such persons who indulge in the theft of the resource which is already scarce.

¶17

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion

¶18

C.W.P.No.19679 of 2009 -3-

¶19

that prima facie there is material on record to show that the petitioner had indeed abused the facility of electricity supply by first getting his premises connected to a load which was in excess to the sanctioned one and subsequent examination of the meter also established certain irregularities.

¶20

Be that as it may, the petitioner at least deserved answer on merits to the pleas that he had raised before the appellate authority which were declined to him as he had approached the appellate authority beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Since all these issues that have been raised before this Court can be addressed by the appellate authority, which may be in a better position to evaluate the facts which seem to be in the center of the controversy, I deem it appropriate to accept the petition, set aside the order of the appellate authority and remit the matter back to it to decide the issue by taking into consideration the entire relevant material on record. However, before commencing upon the exercise the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the respondents within a period of three weeks from today, and failure to do so would entitle the appellate authority to pass an appropriate order in this regard including the denial of consideration to the petition.

¶21

Petition allowed.

¶22

4.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶23

dss

Harjinder Singh Dhillon v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Singh Dhillon v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Dev Shukla Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rakesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Amanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep Sachdev and 11 Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner and Principal Secy. & Ors.