Remanded

Amarjit Singh Johal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012CWP/9580/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing his objection to a liability for unauthorized electricity usage. The High Court held the appellate order was non-speaking, cryptic, and lacked reasoning. It set aside the order and remitted the matter afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the appellate authority for decision afresh.

Amarjit Singh Johal Vs Punjab State Power… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.9580 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.9580 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 21-05-2011

Amarjit Singh Johal

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr. R.B.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

The petitioner has impugned order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure

¶14

P-9).

¶15

Initially the petitioner was proceeded against under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. His premises having been checked he was found to be indulging:-

¶16

i) in mis-use of tariff

¶17

ii) unauthorized extension of load,

¶18

A provisional assessment was framed and he was made liable

¶19

to pay charges amounting to Rs. 1,48,085/-.

¶20

The petitioner filed objections against the same which were not accepted, leading to the filing of an appeal which has also been dismissed by virtue of the impugned order (Annexure P-9).

¶21

Impugning the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the initial charge against him of mis-use of tariff and unauthorized extension of load and has stated that none of these charges

¶22

CWP No.9580 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶23

were elaborately set out so that he could be put on notice so as to enable him to effectively controvert the same. That apart, he has stated that in the absence of any particulars regarding the first charge of mis-use of tariff and also in the absence of any further details of unauthorized extension of load, which situation is visualized in Section 126 Sub-clause 6(b) which is extracted herebelow, the allegations against him could not subsist and consequently, the provisional assessment framed and the subsequent orders necessarily has to be set aside:-

¶24

S.126 Sub Clause 6

¶25

(a) x xxxx

¶26

(b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of

¶27

electricity -

¶28

(i)by any artificial means; or

¶29

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

¶30

authority or licensee; or

¶31

(iii)through a tampered meter; or

¶32

(iv)for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or

¶33

(v)for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.”

¶34

He has further stated that all these allegations having been raised before the appellate authority, the same were not answered in the impugned order.

¶35

The contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has stated that the petitioner was associated with the process of raid and all the objections have been adequately met in the

¶36

CWP No.9580 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶37

impugned order.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-9 reveals that none of the objections raised by the petitioner have been effectively answered and no supporting reasons have been given by the appellate authority while dis-agreeing with the objections of the petitioner. Rather what is manifest in the order is the anxiety of the appellate authority to simply concur with the authority who passed the initial order of assessment.

¶39

An appellate authority constituted under the Act has a bounden duty to pass an order which can be termed to be speaking and not merely pay lip service to the concept of a speaking order which is expected to be supported by reasons and not merely reflect a language already spoken of by the authority whose order is under appeal. The impugned order (Annexure P-9) being cryptic and non-speaking is therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for decision afresh.

¶40

Petition stands accepted.

¶41

May 21, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Amarjit Singh Johal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh Johal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitender & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Suraj Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.