IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17961 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 19, 2011. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another .....Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.S.Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners are aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the authorities of erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board as well as the order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P5) whereby the Appellate Authority, Bathinda has dismissed their appeal against the aforesaid assessment order. Briefly stated, an electric meter bearing No.HP-14/753 was installed in the premises of the retail outlet of petitioner No.1-Company run by petitioner No.2. On a site inspection, the Meter Reader of the respondent-authorities found that the electric meter was dead/stopped (unserviceable) which was accordingly replaced by a new electronic meter C.W.P.No .17961 of 2009 2 and the old meter was sent to the ME Lab, Bathinda with an advance notice to the petitioner dated 23.10.2006 to remain present at the time of its checking. In response to the said notice, petitioner No.2 vide his letter dated 30.10.2006 gave his consent in writing for checking of the meter in his absence. The meter inspection report was received from the ME Lab and it was found that all the four ME seals of the meter were tampered with and the Lash wire had been cut and joined. According to the respondents, it was a clear-cut case of theft of electricity. Consequently, the petitioners were served with a notice dated 14.2.2007 asking them to deposit a sum of Rs.2,59,171. The said notice was, however, set-aside by the Appellate Authority on the plea that its copy was not duly served upon the petitioners. Thereafter, Malkit Singh, RTM, an official of the respondents served the notice upon petitioner No.2 who refused to acknowledge the receipt thereof. As no objections were filed by the petitioners pursuant to the said notice, that the fresh assessment order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) was passed. The aggrieved petitioners preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide an order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) observing as follows:- “....After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the record on the file, it has been found that seals were found broken at the time of checking and the checking was made in the presence of appellants. Meter was sent to the lab for testing but appellants did not come present there, but gave the written consent for the acceptance of results. Lab has also told that theft of electricity has also been committed after C.W.P.No .17961 of 2009 3 breaking the seals and meter is tampered. Thus, the theft of electricity is proved. Appellant has no where said that the seals of the meter were intact so the appeal is dismissed having no merit in it.....” I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, the concurrent finding of fact that the electricity meter was tamper with and its seals were found broken as per the inspection report given by the ME Lab which clearly make out a case of theft of electricity, no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. January 19, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE