CM No.7086-C- of 2008 and ::1:: RSA No.2401 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7086-C- of 2008 and RSA No.2401 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.03.2010 Suraj Bhan .. Petitioner-Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advcate for the appellant Mr.Anil Mehta, Advocate for Mr.Sagar Deshwal, Advocate for the respondents AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . CM No.7086-C- of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2401 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Court below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the notice for recovery issued by the respondents. It is not disputed that the respondents made a raid on the premises of the appellant and took into possession his meter. Later on, it was found that not only was it a case of excessive load, even the seals of the meter were tampered with. The appellant did not respond to the notice but filed a civil suit. CM No.7086-C- of 2008 and ::2:: RSA No.2401 of 2008 The Courts below examined the claim that in fact there was no tampering with the meter and that the respondents while raiding only stated that they wanted to replace the old mechanical meter and had to instal digital meter in its place and for this purpose only, they raided the premises of the appellant. The Courts below disbelieved the version of the appellant and have held that the version of the respondents, on the other hand, was more credible and have consequently dismissed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the notice is mandatory for checking the premises ? (ii) Whether the judgement and decree has been passed by not considering the principles of natural justice by the respondent-department ? (iii) Whether the assessment has been made against the sales circular by the department ? (iv) Whether the judgement and decree passed by the Courts below is misreading the evidence on record? Questions No.1 and 2 are overlapping questions as regards which, learned counsel has not been able to show any law or instructions where notice is necessary for checking the premises. As regards question No.3, no sale circular has been shown. Question No.4 is a general question. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. March 12, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE