Partly allowed

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat & Another

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Feb 2012CWP/9736/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an order by the Permanent Lok Adalat imposing a penalty for electricity theft. The court found a violation of natural justice as the same officer who inspected the meter also certified the report before the Adalat. The petition was dismissed with a direction to adjudicate afresh.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to appoint a different person to check the meter and submit a fresh report for re-adjudication.

Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Chairman… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

::1:

¶2

CWP No.9736 of 2011 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.9736 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: February 29, 2012.

¶5

Punjab State Electricity Board through its Assistant Executive Engineer

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Ms. U.K. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.K.R. Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

The petitioner-Punjab State Electricity Board has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services ), Ferozepur, whereby the complaint of respondent No.2 has been accepted.

¶16

It may be noticed that respondent No.2 is a consumer of petitioner-Board under connection No.PK 59/0670 and the meter was installed in the premises of respondent No.2, which was checked by Sr. XEN Enforcement namely Sh. Jasbir Singh along with his staff on 09.10.2009. During the inspection, certain scratches were found on

¶17

::2:

¶18

CWP No.9736 of 2011 (O & M)

¶19

the cover of the meter and it was also found that the cover of the meter was cracked. On the basis of the same, a direction was issued for changing the electric meter by installing a new one and the old one was sent to the M.E. Lab, Moga for checking. After checking the said meter on 28.10.2009 in the presence of the authorized representative of respondent No.2, it was found that the meter cover was cracked and the number plate of the meter was uplifted due to use of power magnet. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.93713/- was imposed upon respondent No.2 for theft of electricity. The same was challenged by the Consumer before the Permanent Lok Adalat, which allowed the same vide order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-5) impugned herein.

¶20

A perusal of order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-5) shows that the same has been allowed primarily on the ground that the meter was checked by Sh. J.S. Bhullar, Additional S.E. and he was also a member of the team which had inspected the meter in the M.E. Lab, Moga. Therefore, J.S. Bhullar is complainant as well as a Judge in the case in hand which is against the principles of natural justice.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 erred in accepting the claim of respondent No.2 whereas in the present facts, the appropriate course would have been to remand the case back to Permanent Lok Adalat with a direction to adjudicate the same afresh after getting the report from an independent authority in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 could not successfully challenge the aforesaid

¶22

::3:

¶23

CWP No.9736 of 2011 (O & M)

¶24

recourse suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to appoint a different person who shall check the meter of petitioner No.2 in the presence of his authorised representative and submit his report and it will be thereafter that the matter shall be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law.

¶26

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶27

February 29, 2012 sukhpreet

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat & Another

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

Ashok Kumar Vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Yudhishtar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gurdarshan Singh & Anr. Vs Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and Ors.

Gagandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.