CWP No. 22603 of 2010 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.M. No. 16450 of 2011 in CWP No. 22603 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.12.2011 Suresh Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others ........ Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present : Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J. The Court on its own motion and on the basis of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 2.11.2010 passed in RSA No. 1158 of 2006 issued notice to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for brevity 'Nigam”) to explain what is the rational of the policy devised by the Nigam in waiving 50% of the demand of electricity charges against the defaulters who resorted to litigation. This Court has expressed the view that although it is a policy matter but no rational basis was available in waiving of the demand from a person who was in a position to pay as against a genuine consumer who had voluntarily paid all his dues. On the last date of hearing i.e. 9.11.2011 we have asked Mr. Narender Hooda learned counsel for the 'Nigam' to seek instructions with CWP No. 22603 of 2010 -2- regard to the policy, which was circulated vide Memo No. CH. 27/SS- 230/Loose dated 16.10.2002. A decision of the UHBVN dated 30.11.2011 has been placed on record. It has been pointed out that the scheme was floated with the approval of the government as huge amount of Rs. 120 Crore (Rs. 70 Crore in DHBVN and Rs. 50 Crore in UHBVN) was struck up on account of litigation in the Courts. The scheme was introduced to end litigation by settling the cases out of Court through an easy settlement and thereafter approval of the State Government was obtained. It has also been pointed out in para 5 of the decision dated 30.11.2011 that it was a one time settlement scheme to settle the cases pending in various Courts, through the alternative dispute resolution mechanism (ADRM), which has been extended upto December, 2009 and that at present there is no scheme in force. Accordingly, it is informed to us that no such mechanism presently operates. The aforesaid statement has been made not only respect of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. but also in respect of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. In view of the above, the present proceedings are closed as the issue has been rendered academic. Disposed of as such. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 02, 2011 ‘sp’