Writ petition challenging order quashing electricity demand. Petitioner agrieved officer considered inspection post-disputed period. Court remits matter for re-evaluation confined to the disputed timeframe.
Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to Chief Electrical Inspector for re-evaluation of the disputed period.
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. 6262 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6262 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.05.2012
Punjab State Electricality Board, Patiala
....Petitioner
Versus
Surindra Steel Rolling and General Mills and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 whereby the demand of the petitioner amounting to Rs.2,83,926/- raised upon the respondent no.1 on account of violating peak load hours restriction has been quashed.
Respondent no.1 was served with a demand on two counts:-
(a) Peak Load Hour Restrictions violations for the period from 29.1.2004 to 27.4.2004, 28.7.2004 to 5.10.2004, 16.10.2004 to 24.12.2004 and 25.12.2004 to 4.3.2005.
(b) Weekly Off Day violation on 1.8.2004, 15.9.2004 and 22.9.2004.
He did not seriously contest the demand as against demand (b) i.e.weekly off day violation on 1.8.2004, 15.9.2004 and 22.9.2004 and submitted himself to the action of the petitioner. However, he seriously
CWP No. 6262 of 2008 (O&M) 2
questioned violation of Peak load hours restriction and the liability on account thereof. The Chief Electrical Inspector recorded in his order dated 2.5.2006 (Annexure P-1) that the meter upon checking was found to be defective. The Real Time Clock (hereinafter referred to as RTC) was found to be showing a difference of two hours and 11 minutes on checking conducted on 23.12.2005. It was reported that the time of the meter indicated 15:41 hours as actual time was 13:30. The Chief Electrical Inspector then concluded that it being a case of defective meter the violation against respondent no.1 could not be established as against violation indicated at 1(a) above.
Aggrieved by the order of Chief Electrical Inspector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala who upheld the order of Chief Electrical Inspector which has resulted in filing of the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the whole discussion of the Chief Electrical Inspector as also the appellate authority seems to be directed at the inspections conducted on 23.12.2005 whereas the period referred to in the demand raised against respondent no.1 pertains to 29.1.2004 till 4.3.2005. He thus contends that there has been serious irregularity committed by both the authorities below in not appreciating this fact.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 contends that inspections were carried out by the petitioner at various points of time and in each inspection the meter was found to be defective and in fact a change was suggested by the petitioners themselves but it did not result in any concrete action in this regard. He has drawn attention of this Court to para 2 of his
CWP No. 6262 of 2008 (O&M) 3
reply the relevant of which is extracted below:-
“A perusal of the periodical checking reports
(Annexures P/3 to P/6) would show that:
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c ) xxxxx
(d) In the checking report dated 4.3.2005 (Annexure P/6), the meter time was advance by 9 minutes. In the said report (Annexure P/6) although the time 14:42 has been mentioned, which is the meter time, but the actual time has not been mentioned deliberately, which is otherwise mentioned as 14:51 in the report, meaning thereby that meter time was advance by 9 minutes.”
On due consideration of the assertions and counter assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1, I am of the considered opinion that the inspection/checking referred to by respondent no.1 in his reply have not been denied by the petitioner. All these reports conclusively indicate that the meter was defective which was never rectified and finally last inspection was done on December, 2005 which has been noticed by the Chief Electrical Inspector as also the appellate authority.
The grievance of the petitioner is not entirely unfounded as neither the Chief Electrical Inspector nor the appellate authority addressed itself to the period in question and rather formulated its opinion on the inspection which was much subsequent to the disputed period. If the plea of the respondent is accepted that the meter was defective even in the
CWP No. 6262 of 2008 (O&M) 4
inspection/checking done prior to the December, 2005, regarding the disputed period yet the fact remains that it was incumbent upon the Chief Electrical Inspector as well as the appellate authority to address itself on the issue by confining itself to the period which was in dispute. That having not been done, the orders of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the appellate authority suffer from an inherent defect of not addressing issues before them.
For the aforesaid reason, when the basic issue and the demand for which respondent no.1 and the demand regarding which respondent no.1 was confronted with having not been addressed, I am of the considered opinion that the same needs to be done and consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of the above observations by confining themselves to the core issue of the disputed period ie. From 29.1.2004 to 4.3.2005. While doing so, the entire essential material of the checking done at the relevant point of time shall be taken into consideration.
Considering the fact that the matter has been lingering since long, parties are directed to appear before the Chief Electrical Inspector on 1.6.2012. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be competent to pass fresh order in accordance with law and if respondent no.1 is found liable in any manner, the order to that effect can also be passed by the petitioner.
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
May 8, 2012 rekha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders quashing the demand for penalty are susceptible to being quashed for failing to address the core issue of the disputed period.
Whether the authorities were correct in relying on inspection reports conducted subsequent to the period under dispute.
Punjab State Electricality Board, Patiala
Surindra Steel Rolling and General Mills
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
