CWP No.6237 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6237 of 2009 Date of decision: April 27, 2009. Varinder Mohan ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab& Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the demand notice dated 29.9.2008 as well as the appellate order dated 11.2.2009 whereby the demand of Rs.1,14,356/- towards the alleged theft of electricity by illegal method of kundi connection, has been raised and upheld against the petitioner. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders and considering the fact that a team of officials from the PSEB found the petitioner at the spot, committing the power theft by using kundi connection, I do not find any merit so far as the said finding of fact is concerned. CWP No.6237 of 2009 -: 2 :- Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the calculation of the total units which the petitioner is presumed to have illegally consumed, is totally erroneous and against the prescribed formula. According to the learned counsel, the units are required to be assessed by applying the formula of: L (load) x D (days) x H (hours) x F (factor of demand). He refers to the criteria notified by the PSEB and explains that 100% demand factor (F) has been applied as against the 30% which is applicable in the case of domestic connections, as provided at Serial No.(4) in Annexure-P/4, which is a part of the Punjab Govt. Gazette notification dated July 27, 2007. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the total units ought to have been worked out in the following manner:- 5.053 (L) x 30(D) x 8(F) x 30% (F). In this manner, the petitioner's total liability would stand substantially reduced. Having considered the factual contention noticed above, prima- facie, it appears that the same requires reconsideration by respondents no.2 & 3. Consequently, while dismissing this writ petition so far as the impugned orders are concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent to respondent No.3 pointing out the factual error, if any, in the matter of calculation of the units and consequential liability of the petitioner. If such a representation is made, respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months of the receipt thereof. Suffice it to say that the excess payment, if any, made by the petitioner, shall be refunded or adjusted against future bills. Dasti. April 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge