CWP No.1025 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1025 of 2008 Date of decision23 .1 .2008 S.D.O.Electricity Operation Sub Division No.3, Sector 18 A,Chandigarh .. petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr.V.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner M.M.Kumar, J. The S.D.O. Electricity (Operation), Chandigarh has challenged the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Union Territory, Chandigarh directing the petitioner to reframe the electricity bill in respect of applicant- respondent no.2 for the period 18.10.2006 to 18.12.2006 by accepting the reading at 1205 and charge him accordingly. The amount paid in excess by him and the costs of Rs.500/- is to be adjusted in the future bills. A further direction has been issued that the petitioner as per its own order should ensure the visit of Meter Reader to the premises on the applicant- respondent on the date fixed. Having perused the order, we find that there are categorical findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the effect that if there is consumption of 150 units p.m. or 300 units for two months the rate of tariff applied is Rs.1.65 per unit and if the consumption increases beyond 300 units in two months, the entire consumption is charged @ Rs.2.90 per unit. The applicant- respondent has been found to be consuming energy on average below 300 units bi-monthly. On account of delay in obtaining the meter reading the average between the period 18.4.2006 to 18.6.2006 has CWP No.1025 of 2008 2 jumped over 300 units attracting higher tariff at Rs. 2.90 per units. It is not disputed that the meter reader visits for recording reading on 18th of every month whereas in the month of December, 2006 he visited the premises on 26th and the reading has gone beyond 300 units. The permanent Lok Adalat has heavily relied upon document Annexure R/1 which has been placed on record by the applicant- respondent no.2 and has found that the grievance is fully substantiated. The following para shows the afore-mentioned conclusion of the Lok Adalat: “ Another important feature that supports the applicant's version is document R.1. It is the consumption data in respect of this account and it is for the period of 18.12.2004 to 18.12.2006. In this period of 2 years 12 readings were taken. In all these 12 readings but for three occasions, the consumption recorded at the premises of the applicant was far below 300 units bi-monthly. It is only on three occasions that the reading exceeded 300 units. Firstly, it was for the period of 18.8.2005 to 18.10.2005 when the consumption recorded was 372 units. Between 18.4.2006 to 18.6.2006 the consumption recorded was 309 units just 9 units excess of 300 units. Thirdly, it is from 18.10.2006 to 18.12.2006 (the dispute period) that the consumption described was of 335 units. Of course it is under challenge. From, the above consumption data we are of the opinion that the applicant is not a heavy consumer of electricity. Rather his consumption remains far below the consumption of 300 CWP No.1025 of 2008 3 units every two months.; His grievance of being charged at a higher tariff during the disputed period is fully substantiated.” After hearing learned counsel, we are of the considered view that there is no room for us to interfere in the order dated 22.6.2007 ( Annexure P.5) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.The order is based on relevant material and is a well reasoned order. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann) 23.1.2008 Judge okg