C.W.P. No.16303 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16303 of 2010 Date of Decision.22.09.2011 Khurshid Ahmad aged 51 years son of Mohammed Sadik, resident of village Sugh, Tehsil Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar .....Petitioner Versus The Chairman, UHBVN Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat accepting the claim made by the respondent Board for Rs.22,291/-. The same was alleged to be due for the defective meter that had been installed. This amount was said to have been calculated on an average consumption basis. The petitioner's grievance is that the order came to be passed in his absence and he should be given an opportunity against the levy. I put it to the counsel of the Board whether an adjudication could be made before the authority with opportunity given to the petitioner to state his case. Learned counsel contended that there was a valid justification for the C.W.P. No.16303 of 2010 -2- order and it was merely a method of prolonging the matter. 2. I have, therefore, proceeded to examine the case on its own merit. I find that the assessment, which has been made on the assumption that there had been a defective meter, has not followed the manner of making such a levy provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. There is requirement of having to make a provisional assessment giving an opportunity to the consumer to make his objection with reference to the same and only thereafter, a final assessment could be made. Against such an assessment, there is still a provision for an appeal under the Act. All these procedures cannot be scuttled by directly levying certain amount as payable on the alleged defective meter and seek for recovery through the Permanent Lok Adalat. The claim which was made by the Electricity Board was surely contentious or at any rate a decision that had been taken for recovery had been made without following the procedure, which is prescribed under Electricity Act. The award is set aside and the Electricity Board shall be at liberty to follow the requisite procedure laid down under the Act before making any recoveries. 3. The writ petition is allowed subject to liberty as aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 22, 2011 Pankaj*