IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5012 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 18, 2011. Loven Kumar .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 is a consumer of the respondent-Corporation in whose commercial premises an electric meter bearing A/c No.P13GC13/007L was installed. A surprise checking was made by the Executive Engineer (Enforcement-III) of the respondent-Corporation on 12.4.2010 in the premises of the petitioner and the following acts of unauthorized use of the electricity were found; “i) Potential was given to Yellow Phase & CT of Blue Phase. ii) Potential wire was attached to Blue Phase of Yellow Phase, due to this reason, meter was showing less energy in the meter by 33%...” C.W.P.No .5012 of 2011 2 The petitioner was accordingly served with a provisional assessment order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) asking him to deposit a sum of Rs.3,12,188/-. The petitioner submitted his objections against the provisional assessment order which did not find favour by the authorities who reiterated their demand vide final assessment order dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner then went in appeal which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-7) holding as follows:- “...After hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties and after carefully examining the record on case file, I have come to the conclusion that the team of electricity board during the checking of the meter of the appellant the same was found to be tampered and due to which the fine was imposed upon the appellant. The department has given opportunity of being heard to the appellant vide memo No.241 dated 6.9.2010. Therefore, the order under appeal is based on the checking done by the team of department and has been issued after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant has failed to prove his case. So, the appeal is dismissed.....” The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Two fold contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is urged that under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it was imperative upon the authorities to offer reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing a final order of assessment. Secondly, it is urged that the Regulations framed by the C.W.P.No .5012 of 2011 3 respondent-Corporation mandates that where the unauthorized use of the electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the period during which such unauthorized use has been continuing, however, in a case where the period of unauthorized use cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection only. It is argued that since the inspection in the case in hand was conducted on 12.4.2010 and the period of unauthorized use of the electricity could not be ascertained, the authorities were under an obligation to recover the charges of unauthorized use of the electricity for a period of 12 months preceding 12.4.2010 only. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. I do not find any merit in both the contentions. Suffice to say that Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act contemplates the observation of the principles of natural justice before the final assessment order is passed. The expression “reasonable opportunity of hearing” cannotes the principle of audi alterm partem and the show cause notice means such an opportunity to explain one's conduct/action pertaining to unauthorized use of the electricity. The very fact that the 'provisional assessment order' which contains specific reasons was served upon the petitioner and the final assessment order has been passed after inviting objections from him, is a substantial compliance of Section 126 (3) of the Act (ibid). As regards to the Regulations purportedly limiting the liability for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection, I am of the C.W.P.No .5012 of 2011 4 considered view that the provision devises a mechanism for the authorities for assessing the loss caused by a consumer by mis-using the electricity connection. It does not necessarily mean that where the authorities have been able to assess the total loss still they are liable to restrict the recovery for 12 months preceding the date of inspection only. The Regulation confers no right on a thief to commit electricity theft and then thrive on the technicalities. As regards the petitioner's plea that the appellate order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-7) is a non-speaking order, it would be seen from its operative part that the same has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Suffice it to mention here that the reasons mentioned in the provisional assessment order being factually correct, the demand raised from the petitioner warrants no variation. Dismissed. March 18, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE