IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.419 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2010 M/s Durga Rice Mills. -----Appellant Vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, upholding the requirement of deposit of security equal to consumption charges of two months of electricity dues to safeguard any default in payment. The said requirement has been laid down under Regulation 5.3.2 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Duty to supply electricity on request, Power to recover expenditure incurred in providing supply & Power to require security) Regulations, 2005 framed under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”) by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission. LPA No.419 of 2010 2. The appellant is consumer of electricity and its grievance was that demand of security amount on the basis of maximum amount of bill was unreasonable, as it has never committed any default and it had deposited security amount at the time of grant of electricity connection initially. 3. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the objection of the appellant in view of provisions of Section 47 of the Act and held the same to be reasonable. Reliance was also placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and another AIR 1993 SC 2005 upholding a similar provision. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in absence of any default by the appellant, requirement of security was unreasonable. It has been further submitted that statutory requirement under Section 182 of the Act for placing a Regulation before the Legislature has not been followed. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Requirement to deposit security cannot by itself be held to be unreasonable. It is not necessary for framing any such requirement that there must be a default by an individual. The object for requiring security is to safeguard against any such default taking place. Section 47 of the Act itself envisages such 2 LPA No.419 of 2010 requirement. Regulation is merely procedure for giving effect to such statutory mandate. 7. As regard placing the Regulation before Legislature, in the writ petition, there is no pleading. This being a question of fact, had to be pleaded and opportunity given to the other side to respond. There is no presumption that an official Act was not regularly performed. In fact, it is to the contrary. In any case, operation and validity of the Regulation is not affected by such omission. Moreover, the Act itself contemplates security deposit. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 29, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3