CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12402 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21 ,2011 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Gurgaon .....Petitioner VERSUS Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),Gurgaon & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-Nigam has filed this writ petition to challenge the order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat on the ground that the same is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.2 is a consumer of electricity. The petitioner had carried out an inspection of the premises on 27.1.2009. Three phase meter installed at the residence of respondent No.2 was found burnt and the electricity was being used directly. Finding it to be a case of theft of electricity, notice was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12402 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: issued to him for paying a sum of `79424/- and an FIR was also lodged against him. Respondent No.2 filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Nigam filed reply and on the basis of pleadings, the impugned order, Annexure P-6, was passed. It is observed that at the time of checking, only 1.733 KW load was found connected and accordingly keeping in view the interest of justice and fair play, penalty be assessed at 2 KWs only. The applicant i.e. Respondent No.2 agreed to deposit the said amount on this basis to give finality to the matter. The approach adopted by the Lok Adalat appears to be fair. It is also noticed that electricity meter of respondent No.2 was got burnt a day before the date of checking. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the factual position, the approach adopted being fair would not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. January 21 ,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE