Petitioner challenged a recovery order for alleged electricity theft alleged to be passed without reasoning by the Electricity Board officer, prompting Writ Court intervention.
The impugned order dated 13.2.2009 was quashed and matter remanded to respondent with direction to pass speaking order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.5976 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5976 of 2010
Date of decision: 20.4.2012
Harjinder Singh Dhillon
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board and another
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.5976 of 2010
2
upgrade the transformer from 25 KVA to 63 KVA. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee but the respondents failed to install the transformer with proper load. Thereafter, the petitioner personally visited the office of the respondents and contacted the concerned JE who demanded illegal gratification from him which the petitioner refused. As a result, respondent No.2 and other officials of the Board on 8.10.2007 at 9 PM in the night entered into the hotel in a drunken condition and assaulted nephew of the petitioner and other staff members of the hotel and also made a false case of theft of electricity against the petitioner. The respondents also disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner's restaurant and lodged FIR dated 8.10.2007 under Sections 353/186/323/379/382/148/149 IPC and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 9.10.2007, respondent No.2 sent a letter to the petitioner alleging that he was committing theft by putting a cable directly in the transformer and bypassing the meter. A demand of Rs.5,73,624/- was made from the petitioner (Annexure P.2). Vide memo dated 9.10.2007 (Annexure P.3), respondent No.2 again issued a notice of provisional assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, “the Act”) and a demand of Rs.9,47,559/- was made against the petitioner. Vide memo dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P.4), final order of assessment was issued by respondent No.2 making demand of Rs.9,47,559/- from the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Taran Taran, regarding provisional assessment. The
CWP No.5976 of 2010
3
SDM vide order dated 13.10.2007 passed interim order and restored the electricity connection to the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the SDM vide order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P.7) accepted the appeal of the petitioner and remanded the case to respondent` No.2 for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared before respondent No.2 and pleaded on 15.1.2009 but respondent No.2 issued letter dated 13.2.2009 informing the petitioner that the amount of Rs.9,47,559/- demanded was recoverable from him. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a civil suit for issuing a declaratory decree to the effect that the order dated 13.2.2009 was illegal. The said suit was withdrawn by the petitioner on 19.2.2010 as there is a bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts under Section 145 of the Act. The police also filed untraced report in the FIR registered against the petitioner by respondent No.2 and the same was accepted by the CJM, Tarn Tarn vide order dated 2.2.2010. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.2.2009 through the present writ petition.
“The points raised by you, site and the record has been examined. This office does not agree with the contention/points raised by you. That as per LCR No.801017 dated 8.10.2007 prepared by this office earlier and the final order issued vide memo No.2006 dated 11.10.2007 a sum of Rs.9,47,559/- is recoverable
CWP No.5976 of 2010
4
from you. You are directed to deposit the balance amount.”
petitioner. Such an order cannot be said to be a speaking order. There is no discussion with regard to any of the pleas and how the same have been rejected.
April 20, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition maintainable under Article 226 challenging a recovery order for theft of electricity passed without a speaking order.
Whether an order directing deposit of amount without reasoning violates principles of natural justice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Harjinder Singh Dhillon
Punjab State Electricity Board
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
