Partly allowed

P.S.E.B. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Bassi Pathana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2012CWP/3946/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the non-speaking order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate which reduced a penal fine imposed for alleged electricity theft. The Court directed the authority to decide afresh after depositing the full amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.6.2009 set aside and decided afresh; petitioner directed to deposit full amount.

P.S.E.B. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 14545 of 2009(O&M) and connected case

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. CWP No. 14545 of 2009(O&M)

Didar Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

2. CWP No. 3946 of 2010(O&M)

¶11

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another

¶12

....Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib and another

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Date of decision : 01.05.2012

¶17

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶18

Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 14545 of 2009 and for respondent no.2 in CWP No. 3946 of 2010

¶19

Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶20

Mr. B.S.Sudan, Advocate for Mr. P.K.Sekhon, Advocate for petitioner in CWP No. 3946 of 2010 and for respondents no. 2 and 3 in CWP No. 14545 of 2009

¶21

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶22

CM No. 5983 of2012

¶23

Application is allowed as learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶24

no objection to the same. Accompanying documents are taken on record.

¶25

Main cases

¶26

This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP

¶27

Nos. 14545 of 2009 and 3946 of 2010.

¶28

¶29

CWP No. 14545 of 2009(O&M) and connected case

¶30

In CWP No. 14545 of 2009, the petitioner has questioned order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P-9), which is an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, partially accepting his appeal.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that he had requested for shifting of his NF/1162 of 20 BHP motor and has deposited the requisite amount in view of which a receipt had also been issued by the respondents but the needful was not done. The connection was however restored by AJE - Shalinder Singh after 4-5 days and an amount of Rs.6,000/- was demanded from the petitioner for submitting the estimate.

¶32

After two months of the restoration of the connection the enforcement wing of the respondents checked the motor and found that it was functioning on a Government cable. This had led to the raising of a presumption that the petitioner was indulging in theft of electricity and as a result of which a fine of Rs.1,54,714/- was imposed upon him. The petitioner challenged this demand before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bassi Pathana in which the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.51,571/- being 1/3^rd of the fine impose.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire demand ought to have been quashed considering the fact that the connection had been restored by the official of the respondents and that the petitioner had nothing to do with this exercise and if he was permitted the use of the Government cable then he could not be fastened with the liability of Rs.51,571/- on the presumption that it was theft of electricity.

¶34

In CWP No. 3946 of 2010, petitioners - Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (respondents no. 2 and 3 in CWP No. 14545 of 2009) have separately challenged the same order dated 29.6.2009 and have

¶35

CWP No. 14545 of 2009(O&M) and connected case

¶36

¶37

questioned the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to reduce this amount specially when the rules require that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has to be deposited in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act prescribing such a procedure.

¶38

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order in both the petitions dated 29.6.2009 is totally non-speaking. It does not address the issue which has been raised by the parties and gives no reason as to why the amount was reduced by the competent authority to the 1/3^rd of the liability imposed.

¶39

It is a settled proposition of law that an order which is nonspeaking and cryptic and does not expose the reasons for arriving at a conclusion cannot stand the test of judicial review.

¶40

Consequently, both the petitions are accepted and impugned order dated 29.6.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bassi Pathana is set aside with a direction to the said authority to decide the issue afresh by taking into consideration the respective grievances of the parties. However, before such an exercise is conducted, the petitioner in CWP No. 14545 of 2000 shall deposit the entire amount with the respondents without prejudice to his rights and in the eventuality of the petitioner's grievance being accepted, the necessary amount shall be refunded to him forthwith but not later than three months from the date of decision of the competent authority. It is has been stated that an amount of Rs.51,571/- has already been deposited by the petitioner, therefore, he would be required to deposit the balance amount.

¶41

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

¶42

May 1, 2012 rekha

P.S.E.B. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Bassi Pathana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.E.B. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Bassi Pathana & Anr.

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

Sher Singh Vs A.K. Khetarpal

Gurmukh Singh Vs Karnail Singh & Ors.

Brahmjit Rahanoo Vs Ashok Nayar & Anr.

Didar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Puneet Kumar Singh Vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. & Ors.

Vishal Nagrath and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.