IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17625 of 2007 Date of Decision: 5.2.2008 Punjab State Electricity Board and another ...Petitioners Versus M/s Rajneesh Rice Mills, Patran and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 16.5.2007 (P-1), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (under Public Utility Services), Patiala, whereby M/s Rajneesh Rice Mills-respondent No. 1 has been held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 60,150/- and the Punjab State Electricity Board (for brevity, ‘the Board’) has been ordered to refund Rs. 50,150/- being over paid. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Rajneesh Rice Mills, Patran-respondent No. 1 is having electric connection bearing A/c No. MS-71/0060 for the purpose of Rice Sheller. It has been depositing energy bills regularly on the basis of consumption C.W.P. No. 17625 of 2007 recorded through meter or minimum charges for off-season period, inasmuch as, the industry (Rice Sheller) of respondent No. 1 is a seasonal industry. Respondent No. 1 used to avail seasonal benefit by submitting application for disconnecting his motive load and only light load remained connected/operative. The Board issue office Memo No. 2280, dated 25.9.2006, raising a demand of Rs. 60,150/- on the premise that the connection of respondent No. 1 was checked on 14.9.2006 by the Flying Squad, Patiala and found that respondent No. 1 was committing theft of energy for 5.92 KW light load. Respondent No. 1 while denying the allegation of theft of energy requested the Board to withdraw the demand notice. The request of respondent No. 1 was rejected on 19.1.2007 by the Board . On 9.2.2007, respondent No. 1 deposited the disputed amount of Rs. 60,150/- under protest fearing disconnection. On 5.4.2007, respondent No. 1 filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat (under Public Utility Services), Patiala, for quashing demand notice. After adjudicating the controversy the Lok Adalat came to the conclusion that liability for the total amount of Rs. 60,150/- cannot be fastened against respondent No. 1 and it is liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, the Lok Adalat has ordered for refund of Rs. 50,150/- to respondent No. 1 being over paid. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that there is no room to interfere in the impugned order. The Lok Adalat has recorded categoric findings in paras 11 and 12 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- “11. Thereafter respondent no. 2 vide letter No. 67 2 C.W.P. No. 17625 of 2007 dated 19/1/2007 informed the petitioners that the request/objection regarding the demand notice were to be submitted by him within 7 days whereas the same was submitted after about a month. Hence it is a time barred case and asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 60150/- at the earliest failing which action as per rules will be taken. Thereafter the petitioner through a letter dated 6/2/2007 submitted in the office of respondent no. 2 requested for the grant of a personal hearing with the competent authority for which no action was taken by respondent no. 2 subsequently the petitioner on 9/2/2007 deposited Rs. 60150/- in the office of Respondent No. 2 alongwith letter stating therein that the amount was being deposited under protest to avoid the disconnection of electricity as the working season already started. The petitioner filed the petition on 5.4.07 for the refund of Rs. 60150/- already deposited by him with respondent No. 2. 12. May be that there is some delay on the part of the petitioners for not filing the reply of the respondent’s letter in time. On the other hand the respondents did not act upon as per their own rules and regulations, e.g. although the total sanctioned load of the petitioner under Account No. MS-71/0060 is 61.13 KWs out of which only 5.98 KW is for light load and the remaining load is a motive load. The objections of the petitioners that the 3 C.W.P. No. 17625 of 2007 checking report is a fabricated one cannot be relied upon due to the reason that quite a few senior officers of the Board, was involved in checking of theft who had carried out the checking of other shellors also on that day, situated at Patran. As per the report of the enforcement staff a theft of 5.92 KW of electricity for light load and not for the motive load meant for running the sheller was made the compounding charges work out to Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 60,150/- claimed by the respondent No. 2 for 5.92 KW of light load worked at the rateof Rs. 5000/- as per the Circular No. 34/06 of respondent No. 1. Secondly the petitioners has been deprived of his right of getting personal hearing with the Additional S.E. as required under clause of 43.5 of conditions of supply, read with clause for 134.4 of electric supply regulation 2005 of PSEB reproduced hereunder:-” This Court cannot go into the findings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 5, 2008 JUDGE 4 C.W.P. No. 17625 of 2007 Pkapoor 5