R.S.A No. 1495 of 2007 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1495 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : March 10, 2010 Pawan Kumar ...... Appellant (s) v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. R.K.Nagapal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging imposition of penalty levied by respondent No.1. The facts are that a vigilance team inspected the premises of the appellant and found that the electric meter box was tampered with, and taking a load of 27 Kilo Watt, a penalty at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per kilo R.S.A No. 1495 of 2007 (O&M) ::2:: watt was levied upon the appellant amounting to Rs.5,40,000/-. In the suit, the appellant took a plea that in fact when the officials of the Vigilance Department came to raid his premises, they broke the cover of the meter. Both the Courts below found on fact that the appellant has not been able to establish his assertion that in fact the meter box was broken by the raiding team, and consequently dismissed the suit, as mentioned above. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ I) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are illegal and unlawful ? II) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside for being against facts and law ?” It would be seen that both the questions proposed are general questions. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the finding that the appellant has not been able to prove that in fact the meter was broken by the raiding team is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 10, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1495 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::