In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 5216 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.3.2008 Santosh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.V.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner . **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 11.9.2007 (P-2) passed by respondent No.2 along with the Assessment Order dated 23.5.2007 (P-1) passed by respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.29432/- as penalty for tampering with the seals of the meter installed at the residence of the petitioner. A categorical finding has been recorded holding that M.E.Lab has found all the seals of the meter, installed at the premises of the petitioner were broken. It has been found as a fact CWP No. 5216 of 2008 -2- that the petitioner has indulged in theft of electricity. Apart from the aforementioned tampering of meter, the Punjab State Electricity Board has also compared the old and new consumption of electricity of the petitioner, which has been found more than the prescribed load. It was on the aforementioned basis that the petitioner was asked vide memo No.233 dated 23.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) to deposit the amount found due. After hearing learned counsel at some length we find that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The argument, based on the judgment of Kerla High Court in Nirmala Metal Industries vs. K.S.E.B. and others, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil), 441, that the petitioner should have been asked to be present at the time of testing by the M.E. Lab, does not cut any ice because neither any such argument was raised nor any case of that nature was set up before the authorities below. Moreover, when the meter was removed the petitioner was present and a new meter was installed. Therefore the argument does not come to the rescue of the petitioner and is hereby rejected. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) March 31, 2008 JUDGE anita