CWP No.3202 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3202 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.11.2010 **** Ravinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8th December, 2008 (Annexure P9) passed by the SDM Khanna, whereby his appeal against the demand notice of `36734/- raised by the respondent-PSEB authorities, has been dismissed. (2). Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the records perused. (3). It is apparent from the impugned order dated 8th December, 2008 that various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been noticed but not dealt with and the appeal has been dismissed only on CWP No.3202 of 2009.doc - 2 – the ground that the petitioner objected to the checking of the electric meter despite repeated notices sent to him in this regard. (4). Since the impugned order does not meet with all the contentions raised before the Appellate Authority, there appears to be some substance in the contention that the petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed by passing a cryptic order. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P9) is hereby set aside with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khanna to decide the appeal afresh and in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). It may also be mentioned here that vide order dated March 2, 2009, the petitioner’s connection was directed to be restored on deposit of half of the penalty amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the requisite amount has already been deposited. The Appellate Authority shall accordingly not insist for any further deposit as a pre-condition to decide the appeal. However, the petitioner shall continue to deposit the monthly bills and if he is in arrears of electricity charges for the period after the CWP No.3202 of 2009.doc - 3 – passing of the Appellate Order, he is directed to deposit the same before the appeal is taken up for final hearing. (7). The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Appellate Authority. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 29.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE