IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11383 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.07.2009 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat and another Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to the award dated 15.12.2008 (P7), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service) Gurgaon (in short the Lok Adalat), rejecting claim of the petitioner, to recover amount for electricity use, on commercial basis from respondent No.2. Record reveals that respondent No.2 is the occupant of house No.445, Sector 1, IMT, Manesar. Property, in question, was taken on lease on 24.4.2008. Officials of the petitioner inspected premises occupied by respondent No.2 on 5.9.2008 and on an allegation that he was using the property for commercial purpose (office), the petitioner imposed a penalty of Rs.49,374/-, towards commercial use of electricity and excess load put on the system, by treating it as theft of electricity. Respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. When conciliation proceedings failed, the Lok Adalat decided the matter, on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. By taking note of the facts on Civil Writ Petition No.11383 of 2009 record, the Lok Adalat has come to a conclusion that house was not being used for office purpose, as alleged. To say so, reference has been made to the rent amount, mentioned in the lease deed and contents of the lease deed, stating that the property was taken on rent, for use as a residence. Furthermore, the checking staff detected excess load, put on the system to the extent of 0.678 KW only, which was treated as a theft of the electricity and for that, penalty was imposed. This Court feels that putting of excess load on the system, under no circumstances, can be treated as theft of electricity. Furthermore, it was case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had installed one Air Conditioner in the premises, however, no evidence in that regard, was produced at the time, when matter was pending before the Lok Adalat. Now some photographs have been placed on record, to show that Air Conditioner was installed in the premises, in question. However, once that evidence was not led before the Lok Adalat, in writ petition, such like evidence cannot be relied against respondent No2. The Lok Adalat has further held that even as per inspection report, the staff found TV, water motor, inverter, fridge and other house hold appliances in the premises, on account of which, it was said that the building was not used for office purpose. This Court feels that the findings given are perfectly justified. Even during arguments, nothing has been shown to the contrary. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 31.7.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 2