Dismissed

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal Hoshiarpur & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jun 2016CWP/11546/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. challenged an appellate tribunal order allowing an appeal and setting aside recovery. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the respondent was already acquitted of theft, rendering the recovery unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The challenge to the Appellate Tribunal's order is dismissed with no interference.

Punjab State Power Corporation… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

VINOD KUMAR 2016.07.05 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.11546 of 2016

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.11546 of 2016 Date of decision:02.06.2016

¶7

Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. and others

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sub Divisional Magistrate-cumAppellate Tribunal, Hoshiarpur and another ...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶12

Present: Ms. Promial Nain, Advocate, for the petitioners. *****

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

¶14

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.12.2014 by which the appeal filed by respondent No.2 has been allowed and the order of the Competent Authority dated 02.07.2009 has been set aside.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that an FIR No.23 dated 04.10.2009 was lodged against respondent No.2 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in which he was prosecuted vide Challan No.3 dated 16.09.2010 before the Court of Manjinder Singh, Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of the Special Court, in which he was acquitted vide order dated 01.08.2013 from the charge of theft holding that respondent No.2 has been charged on assumptions and presumptions and there is no concrete evidence against him for commission of the theft.

¶16

Once the respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charge

¶17

[ 2 ]

¶18

VINOD KUMAR 2016.07.05 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.11546 of 2016

¶20

¶21

of theft, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal, setting aside the order by which respondent No.2 was asked to pay the amount assessed and payable on account of commission of theft.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perusing the record, I do not find any reason to interfere in this petition as the respondent No.2 has already been acquitted of the charge of theft and has been held to be not liable to pay the amount, as claimed by the petitioners and assessed on account of theft of the electricity.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

June 02, 2016 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal Hoshiarpur & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal Hoshiarpur & 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

Jaipan Singh @ Leela Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Bhardwaj Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Om Nayayan Nagar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jaskaran Singh and Anr. Vs the District Magistrate Cum Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Raj Rani & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.