IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14040 of 2008. Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2009. Ishwar Singh Yadav ....Petitioner through Mr. A.C.Jain, Advocate Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr...Respondents through Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner's grievance appears to be that he has been asked to deposit additional electricity duty @ Re.1/- per unit retrospectively due to mis-interpretation of Memo No. ED/Tariff/8452 dated 11.8.1998 issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Haryana to the Superintending Engineer, Op Circle, HSEB, Faridabad, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. According to the petitioner, the word 'please' used in the aforesaid circular, has been misread by the respondent authorities as 'palace' and consequently, electricity duty @ Re.1/- per unit has been imposed on the marriage palace run by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the above noticed limited plea taken by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the petitioner's claim and in case it is found that the electricity duty @ Re.1/- per unit has been charged from the petitioner retrospectively on misreading of the aforementioned circular, the mistake be rectified. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. February 3, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE