Remanded

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, Distt Kapurthala & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2015CWP/24708/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for lack of reasoning. The High Court set aside the order as it was passed without application of mind and without assigning reasons, remanding it for a fresh decision after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and case remanded to the same authority for deciding afresh after affording opportunity of hearing.

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-24708-2012 Date of decision : 08.09.2015

¶3

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others

¶4

...... Petitioners

¶5

¶6

Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, District Kapurthala & another

¶7

...... Respondents

¶8

Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶9

Present : Mr. B.S. Taunque, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Jasvir Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (oral)

¶12

This petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Kapurthala.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order does not contain any reason as it is based upon some statement of one Lower Division Clerk of the petitionerCorporation who had allegedly stated that it is not a case of theft but of overload. It is submitted that the load of the electricity was sanctioned to respondent No.1 for water supply but it was otherwise used for the street lights. It is submitted that as per Section 135(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondent is guilty of theft of electricity and it is not a case of overload. It is also submitted that all these aspects have not been considered by the concerned authority while passing the impugned order.

¶14

SATYAWAN 2015.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

CWP-24708-2012

¶16

-2-

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that they have never used the sanctioned load of electricity for any other purpose.

¶18

Be that as it may, the impugned order is silent in this regard and it is based solely upon on the statement of one Lower Division Clerk who alleged to have appeared on behalf of the Electricity Department.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and without assigning any reason. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the same authority for deciding it afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Needless to say that the said authority shall decide the issue by giving cogent reasoning. The parties are directed to appear before the competent authority on 5.10.2015.

¶20

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶21

08.09.2015 sp

¶22

SATYAWAN 2015.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, Distt Kapurthala & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, Distt Kapurthala & Anr.

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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tara Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dolly Gambhir Vs Gurpreet Kaur & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.