IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1846 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.10.2009 Didar Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Rishi Pal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.24253-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1846 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the Punjab State Electricity Board imposed a penalty of Rs.1,54,714/- on petitioner. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bassi Pathana, who was exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the rules. Vide order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P-3), the penalty was reduced by the aforesaid Appellate authority to Rs.51,571/-. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing CWP No.14545 of 2009. By way of interim directions, this Court directed the respondent to restore the electric connection on deposit of the amount which the petitioner was required to pay. The respondent vide Annexure P-6 informed the petitioner that the penalty imposed remains unpaid and therefore, the electric connection cannot be restored. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.40,000 with the respondent and he was required to deposit only a sum of Rs.12,000/- approximately and therefore, the demand of the respondent to pay the penalty amount of COCP No.1846 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Rs.1,54,714/- amounts to disobeying the interim orders passed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the petitioner's own case that Rs.40,000/- deposited by him were the charges for necessary expenses for restoration of the connection and he has not paid any other amount so far. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner has not paid any amount towards the penalty imposed upon him. No doubt, the penalty of Rs.1,54,714 as imposed by the respondent was reduced by the Appellate Authority to a sum of Rs.51,571/-. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that he is ready to deposit the aforesaid amount. Rather in his pleadings, the petitioner has nowhere shown his willingness to pay the amount of penalty. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to take cognizance of this petition. Dismissed. October 15, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE